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 - DP16-0200
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/01/2017 | ARUIZ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/18/2017 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP16-0200 RendezVous Urban Flats / 3rd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 |
| 09/19/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Rendezvous Urban flats Development Package (3rd Review) DP16-0200 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 19, 2017 DUE DATE: November 2, 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. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions 1. Follow to Previous Comment 2: A hold has been placed on the building final inspection. Once the documentation for the tax parcel combo has been provided to PDSD for verification the hold will be removed by zoning. 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. Previous Comment 2 - 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. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development 2. Follow up to pervious comment 4: The second part of the previous comment was not addressed. Contact Ann Chanukah, Phone: (520) 837-6691, Email: ann.chanecka@tucsonaz.gov. Request a formal approval from Ann via email and include the document with the next submittal. 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. 3. Follow up to previous comment 5: The location of the long term bicycle lockers must be drawn, dimensioned and labeled on the plan. The fully diemsnioned locker details must be added to the detail sheet of the DP based on the location within the building, be it in the parking levels or other secure location. Previous Comment 5 - 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: 4. Follow Up to previous comment 6: The proposed areas that will require aerial easements shall be drawn, labeled and dimensioned as such on the DP site plan sheet. A revised DP will be required once the recordation of the easements have been completed. The recordation info will be labeled on the revised DP. A Previous Comment 6. 2-06.4.9.L - It appears that building features, balconies, encroach in the ROW. Some type of aerial easement or temporary revocable easement (TRE) is required. Contact City of Tucson Transportation Real Estate Section to secure the required easement. 5. Follow up to previous comment 7: The sheets that were requested to be removed from the DP package were still included in the DP package. Per the previous comments sheets A201 through A403 shall be removed form the DP package. By removing the sheets as noted above the sheet index on the cover will have to be revised to list the remaining sheets in the package. The sheet number and number of sheets will have to be revised in the title block of the remaining sheets. Previous Comment 7: 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, 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 |
| 09/22/2017 | GWITTWE1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 10/02/2017 | CLAURIE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | Applicant provided documentation which varied the elevations matched the DRC recommendation. |
| 10/03/2017 | KELLY LEE | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Environmental & General Services Department (EGSD) has completed our review of the Rendezvous Urban Flats project (DP16-0200) The applicant shall provide some additional clarity as to their proposed solid waste / recycling material management plans. As discussed on Sheet C001 in General Note 16, it is stated that 322 tons per year of solid waste will be generated for the existing building. Please provide calculations for this waste generation rate including building use, square footage and the number of tons of waste generated based on the preceding two factors. EGSD agrees with the calculation of 681 tons per year for the proposed new development. Is the proposal to use the compactor in the existing garage to store solid waste or recycling materials? What is the proposal for solid waste / recycling material storage for the new building? Where will be containers be stored? Have the applicant provide any additional information to clarify the proposed waste management plan. Thank you. Tom Ryan, P. E. City of Tucson - Environmental & General Services Department |
| 10/03/2017 | GARY WITTWER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Reqs Change | >>> Gary Wittwer 10/03/2017 07:57 AM >>> Kelly, I denied this one, but could not enter my comments. 1. I suggest that you use a smaller DG size in the planters next to sidewalk. The 3/4" can be a slip hazard 2. Page 13 of 28 Irrigation- Planting in ROW note #7 - No mainline to be installed in ROW. It appears that the mainline is in ROW along Stone. Gary |
| 10/04/2017 | ALEXANDRA HINES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2017 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |