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 - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP16-0200
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/29/2017 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
07/05/2017 ALEXANDRA HINES OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approved
07/06/2017 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change *The image can be viewed in the Documents folder on PRO as 'Addressing DP16-0200 2nd Submittal'.

DP16-0200 RendezVous urban flats / 2nd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing with one request for a correction to General Note #3 on page C001*:

Thank you,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Official
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
07/07/2017 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 (2nd Review)
DP16-0200

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 7, 2017

DUE DATE: July 28, 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.

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.

2-06.4.7 - 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

1. Previous Comment 7 - Zoning acknowledges that this comment will be addressed once the IID review is completed. 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.

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.

2. Previous Comment 9 - Zoning acknowledges receipt of the request for lot combo of parcels 117-12-098A & 117-12-099A but as the vehicle parking structure crosses over parcel 117-12-103C the lot combo needs to include parcel 117-12-103C, or a Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property will need to be executed. Once approved provide a copy of the approved combo request form with your submittal. Also remove the parcel line between parcels 117-12-098A & 117-12-099A from all development package sheets. 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.

3. Previous Comment 10 - This comment was not addressed. 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.

4. Previous Comment 15 - Per UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.dWhere buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking must be distributed so that at least one short-term bicycle parking space is within 50 feet of each public entrance. That said there appears to be public entrances within the courtyard area. The short term bicycle parking proposed within the right-of-way (ROW) will need to be approved by the City of Tucson Transportation Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Coordinator, Ann Chanukah, Phone: (520) 837-6691, Email: ann.chanecka@tucsonaz.gov2-06.4.9.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.

5. Previous Comment 16 - Zoning was not able to locate a detail for the long term bicycle parking 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.

Additional comments:

6. 2-06.4.9.L - It appears that building features, baloneys, encroach in the ROW. Some type of aerial easement or temporary revolkable easement (TER) is required. Contact City of Tucson Transportation Real Estate
Section to secure the required easement.

7. 1. Zoning acknowledges that this comment should have been provided during the first review. Remove architectural sheets A201 through A403 from the development package as they will not be reviewed and/or approved during the development package review. Ensure that the total number of pages is adjusted accordingly on each remaining sheet. The can be submitted as reference but not part of the development package.
Once the above comments are addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review. Call or email to schedule this review.

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
07/11/2017 TOM FISHER COT NON-DSD TDOT Reqs Change I have the following comments:

1. All plant to be located within the ROW must be on the approved plant list. Honey Locust is not on the list. NOTE - If you are removing the existing trees and replacing them with new - they you should follow the existing tree thyme which is Heritage Oak. You have a symbol for a shrub or ground cover on the Congress that does not appear in the Key.

2. The main pedestrian path on stone needs to be all concrete - min. of 6' wide. It appears that you are using pavers.

3. Please submit a 100% irrigation plan.

4. You may already have the standard notes on the plans, but if not - please add the Standard Notes for planting in the ROW. Send me an e-mail if you need them.

Gary Wittwer
Gary.Wittwer@tucsonaz.gov
07/12/2017 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
07/19/2017 CLAURIE1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied DP16-0200

Per IID revied:

Per section: 5.12.7.C.5, and 8.A.1.b, c and e: Single plane of façade may not be longer than 50% of frontage.
Pleae provide additioanl information assoicated withSheet A300: South Elevation shows additional storefront along half of the 1st Level elevation per Architects presentation at the IID Design Review Committee. South Elevation sealed on 6/26/17 is approved.

5.12.7.C.14: 24 hr street level activity Applicant will review the South elevation at the street level to create more street activity Sheet A300: South Elevation shows additional storefront along half of the 1st Level elevation per
Architects presentation at the IID Design Review Committee .
South Elevation sealed on 6/26/17 is approved.
07/24/2017 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. The revised TIS states that there will be no effect on the I-10 and Congress intersection with this development as was requested in prior comments. Thank you.

Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov>
07/28/2017 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:
The following comments were not addressed from the previous review:
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.
07/31/2017 PCDS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department

FROM: David Takaki, Site Project Manager

PROJECT: DP17-0200, Rendezvous Urban Flats - Development Package (2st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 07/27/2017

DUE DATE: 07/27/2017

The Drainage Report is acceptable and the Development Package appears to be compliant and it is hereby recommended for approval pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Loren Makus, 520-837-4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov.
07/31/2017 KELLY LEE 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
07/31/2017 KELLY LEE COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change the City of Tucson - Environmental and General Services Department has completed our review of the second submittal for the Rendezvous Urban Flats project located at 20 S. Stone Avenue in Tucson.



It is proposed to use one existing 25 cubic yard solid waste compactor which is located within the existing parking garage for both the existing and proposed buildings on the subject site. If this is the case, why does General Note No. 16 on Sheet C001 reference eight 8 cubic yard containers? With the existing 25 cubic yard compactor, what is the anticipated servicing frequency? What is the compaction ratio from loose uncompacted refuse to the compacted refuse within the stationary compactor? The solid waste management agreement between ISC Partners, LLC and Aerie Development, LLC was dated April 5, 2017. This document is titled "Dumpster Share Agreement". Should this document reference an agreement to share use of a stationary compactor or is the agreement to share use of a dumpster? Please clarify how recycling materials are proposed to be managed. Please have the applicant respond to these comments.



Tom Ryan, P. E.

City of Tucson - Environmental and General Services Department

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/01/2017 ARUIZ1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed