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

Permit Number: DP16-0200
Parcel: 11712099A

Address:
20 S STONE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP16-0200
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/17/2016 ARUIZ1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/17/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed Agencies does not need to respond; for notification purposes only.
11/17/2016 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Passed Agencies does not need to respond; for notification purposes only.
11/17/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed Agencies does not need to respond; for notification purposes only.
11/17/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed Agencies does not need to respond; for notification purposes only.
11/21/2016 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved PCRWRD approved DP16-0200 Rendezvous Urban Flats with no further review required, whoever, the proposed private sewer need to be approved by PDEQ.

We have create file for this DP on our system for records and future building permit.

Respectfully


Hussein Al Zubaidi
Engineering Plans Tech.
Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
201 N. Stone Ave., 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-6404
11/21/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department has completed our review of DP16-0200, Rendezvous Urban Flats / 1st Submittal.

General Note No. 16 on Drawing No. C001 provides the waste stream calculations for the existing and proposed structures on the 20 S. Stone Avenue property. It is stated that 312 tons per year of solid waste are generated for the existing building and that 155 tons per year will be generated for the new development. The new building development includes 118,773 square feet of multi-family dwelling and 2,739 square feet of general merchandise / retail development. 118,773 sq. ft. x 0.0057 tons/sq. ft. (generation rate for multi-family development) = 677 tons per year. 2,736 sq, ft. x 0.0013 tons / sq. ft. (generation rate for small retail use) = 3.5 tons. The applicant shall review the waste stream calculations for this site and revise as necessary.

It is proposed that a compactor will be used for on-site solid waste storage. There will be a joint compactor use agreement between property owners. In general, the use of a solid waste compactor would be approved by Environmental Services for this site. The applicant shall provide information on the on-site storage and management of recycling materials in the next submittal.

Please contact me at (520) 837-3713 if there are any questions concerning the review of this development package.

Tom Ryan, P.E.
City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department
11/23/2016 CLAURIE1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied Subject to IID/RNA review process. Denied until the conditions are set. Contact Carolyn Laurie with any questions: 837.4953
11/29/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 1, 2016
DUE DATE: December 13, 2016
SUBJECT: New 6-story Structure
TO: William E Gasque, PE
LOCATION: 20 S Stone Ave
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0200
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Where the code reference is not cited below the AM2-06.4.9N section should be applied as appropriate. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0200).
2) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5 and UDC 7.6.6C please provide a more detailed proposed conditions exhibit showing the locations of the proposed conditions watersheds with flow arrows showing which basin each watershed/hardscape area drains to. Also provide horizontal dimensioning of all retention and detention basins with elevations of basin bottoms, weir outlet elevations and top of basin elevations as applicable on this proposed conditions exhibit. The exhibit may need to be enlarged to a full size sheet in order to make it legible with the required information. The total volume of retention and detention should be notated on each basin in this proposed conditions exhibit. The dimensions that are required on the proposed conditions drainage map should be reflected on the horizontal control sheet C300. The basins should be called out with identifiers that allows each basin to be referenced back to the calculations contained in the drainage report appendices. The calculations for the retention/detention basins contained in appendix H of the drainage report are not sufficient to support the narrative or the plans. Additional input and output information beyond the hydrographs shown in this appendix is required to clearly show the requirements are being met. The same should be done for the storm drains.
3) Please note that per UDC 7.14.4, Section 12.2.1, Item 7 the amount of stormwater discharged from the site should not increase significantly from the predeveloped/ pregraded condition. This is considered to be the original natural predeveloped condition of the site. While it is anticipated this can be addressed through the use of the water harvesting/planter areas being proposed, it is not clear from the plan how stormwater from the new building area is being harvested/retained in these planters. Please update plan per AM 2-06.4.9N.
4) Infill incentive district general note 4 on sheet C001 has a typo where landscape is mistyped. Please correct.
5) Infill incentive district general note 7 needs the code references to be clarified and corrected as follows; Section TSM 8-01.4.0, Justification UDC 5.12.10.D2.
6) Per AM 2-06.4.8F there is a significant amount of existing stormdrain lines shown on the demo plan that should be augmented to show the existing inlets. Per AM 2-06.4.8D the pipe diameters of these storm sewers should be shown. Per AM 2-06.4.8G the disposition of whether these storm drain inlets and pipes should be noted as to remain or to be removed. Please update the plan accordingly.
7) Per AM 2-06.4.8D the diameter of all of the water, sewer and storm drains within 50 feet of the site should be shown.
8) Keynote 16 on sheet C400 should be called out at the proposed storm drain catch basin locations.
9) Keynote 28 on sheet C400 which shows 2' wide weir notch should be supported by calculations to be contained in the drainage report.
10) The basin bottom elevation 84.40 and the invert elevation 84.76 related to the northern most detention retention basin as shown on sheet C500 (ie. grading plan) needs supporting data from calculations to be contained in the next submittal of the drainage report. A cross section of this basin which reflects the 4:1 slope from the top of wall/patio to the basin bottom elevation also needs to be provided for clarity of construction.
11) There are grades of -0.77%, -0.57% and -1.00% shown on the north side of sheet C500 (ie. grading plan) that suggest there is not enough impervious area being routed to the detention/retention basins to make them effective. A Proposed condition drainage map will need to address this concern along with calculations showing the impact on runoff to be required in the next submittal of the drainage report. The drainage report narrative will also need to clarify this.
12) Update the grading plan C500 (ie. grading plan) to provide grades for all of the planter/retention facility basin bottoms and top of basin/planter. This should match supporting information to be provided in the next submittal of the drainage report.
13) Per AM 2-06.4.8G show the location of the existing trash enclosure.
14) Per AM 2-06.4.9T show the proposed location of the trash enclosures and vehicle maneuverability for accessing these trash enclosures.
15) Since the new building is adding an additional 155 tons of solid waste per year based on the waste stream calculation, this review must consider compliance with current solid waste standards. Please provide additional plan detail that show compliance with TSM 8-01.5.3E and F.
16) Per TSM 10-01.4.1D1a please call out a maximum 2% slope where any pedestrian way crosses a driveway.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
11/30/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approv-Cond November 28, 2016

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP16-0200, Rendvzous Urban Flats; 1st Submittal, a development package application for an approximately 0.73 acre site located on the northwest corner of West Broadway Boulevard and South Stone Avenue. The proposed land use is mixed use; comprised of commercial and residential uses.

This site is within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and public disclosure area, FAA traffic pattern airspace, and FAA Part 77 airspace.

The applicant shall file Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before constructions activities begin. Any cranes used for the project must also be identified with Form 7460. Please file Form 7460 at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp.

The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition should be identified in the general notes of the approved development plan.

Conditions of approval:

"That prior to the City's approval of any construction permit for a permanent building, the property owner shall record the Avigation Easement prior to the subdivision process which discloses the existence, and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided."

The current property owner or person authorized to sign on behalf of the current property owner shall complete, sign, and record the Avigation Easement. Once the Avigation Easement is recorded please send a copy of the recorded easement to Tucson Airport Authority by either email (send to srobidoux@flytucson.com) or to the mailing address provided below.

Scott Robidoux
Airport Planner
Tucson Airport Authority
7250 South Tucson Boulevard
Suite 300
Tucson, AZ 85756

For only the residential units (the commercial units are excluded) the developer shall provide the Airport Disclosure Statement form, at time of sale, to the new property owners with new unit purchases. The new property owner shall forward a signed copy of the Airport Disclosure Statement form to:

Scott Robidoux
Airport Planner
Tucson Airport Authority
7250 South Tucson Boulevard
Suite 300
Tucson, AZ 85756

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-573-4811.

Respectfully,

Scott Robidoux,
Airport Planner

cc file
11/30/2016 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See attachments at PRO under Documents and Plans button in Documents folder.

DP16-0200 Rendvzous Urban Flats/1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. Please see the sticky note comments in the attached pdf. There is also a comment summary for your use.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
12/02/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: RendzVous urban flats
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0200

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 05, 2016

DUE DATE: December 13, 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 November 13, 2017.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. That said all sheets need to be drawing at an engineering scale.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). Shall be provided in the lower right hand corner of every sheet. This should include all sheets in this set.

3. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0200, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

4. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the IID case number, T16SA00442, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

5. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

6. 2-06.4.4 - Remove the subdivision information from the location map as it is not required.

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

7. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Once the IID is approved ensure that general note 6 is completed along with listing any conditions of the IID.

8. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - As the site boarders on Major Streets and Routes provide a general note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & UDC ARTICLE 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)."

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

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.

9. 2-06.4.8.A - As this site is made up of three (3) parcels, 117-12-103C, 117-12-098A & 117-12-099A, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with you next submittal.

10. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for all streets shown on this 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.

11. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation appears to be incorrect. The ratio shown for the residential use appears to from UDC Article 7.4.5.B.3.c but you have also stated that you are using the IID. UDC Article 5.12.8.E.2.d states Section 7.4.5.B, Downtown Parking District, does not apply. Clarify what overlay you are proposing to use and adjust the vehicle parking calculation accordingly. If you are using the IID the vehicle parking is based on UDC Table 7.4.4-1.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The short term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, the required number is based on 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number required for the retail space is two (2). The total short term required should be 16.

14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The long term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, the required number is based on 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number required for the retail space is two (2). The total long term required should be 73.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show the required short-term bicycle parking in the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of 7.4.9.B.1, B.2 & .C are met.

16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show the required long-term bicycle parking in the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of 7.4.9.B.1, B.2 & .D are met.

17. 2-06.4.9.O - The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under general note 19 does not appear to be correct. As this site boards on streets designated as arterial streets on the COT MS&R map this site should use developing area street perimeter yard setbacks. Based on the height of 92' listed under general note 19 the required street perimeter yard setbacks to Congress St., Broadway Bl., and Stone Av., would be 92', see UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2.

18. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

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
12/02/2016 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Reqs Change Regional Traffic Engineering has reviewed the submittal and recommends a discussion of any impacts to I-10 and Congress by this development be included in the traffic study. Note the development lies within a half mile from ADOT facilities. Thank you.

Tom Martinez
12/05/2016 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
12/06/2016 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Reqs Change I have reviewed the subject plans and have the following comments:

1. 3/4 " rock near ped path is a hazard. Rock can gets on walkway. Reduce size to 3/8".

2. The pavers in the general ped walk area does not meet the "Downtown Streetscape Policy" - Change to concrete.

3. I am unable to find the Ironsmith 4160 tree grate. Please submit a cut sheet.

4. Plants in the ROW must be on the approved plant list. Honeylocust is not on the list. Please consider following the City's approve tree planting plan. Heritage Oaks are the street tree along Stone.
12/07/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data
A. 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.
7.6.4. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS:
5.12.8. GENERAL IID ZONING OPTION DESIGN STANDARDS
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 provided their location and design characteristics are compatible with the historic and design context of the street and the architectural integrity of the building. 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 shade plan.
b. Exception
The PDSD Director may approve an IID Plan providing less than 50% shade where compliance is not feasible due to a project site's location and/or building orientation and the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to comply with this standard.

Use of the Public Right-of-Way
Non-required landscaping may be placed in the public right-of-way, if the following standards are met:
1. The landscaping is approved by the City Engineer or designee and complies with the City Engineer's standards on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type;
2. All vegetation complies with the standards of Section 7.6.4, Landscaping Standards; and,
3. The landscaping does not interfere with the use of the sidewalk.
Obtain permission for the use of ROW and add the appropriate notes on landscape plans.
Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval.
Additional comments may apply.
12/07/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Passed
12/12/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
12/12/2016 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change It appears that the roof may considered "an occupied roof". The height appears to be more than 75 feet from the lowest level of fire department access. This would require the building to be designed as a "High Rise". Please clarify if this is the intent.
12/13/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
12/14/2016 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) 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
06/29/2017 MMENDIB1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed