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
Permit Number - DP17-0079
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/2017 | MMENDIB1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/06/2017 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | April 6, 2017 To: Anthony Boone Rick Engineering Company. ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, RWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: The Mark at Tucson P17WS00030 PSL-1ST Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Tom Porter, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD |
| 04/10/2017 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | DP17-0079 The Mark at Tucson / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. Addressing’s comments are found in the attached pdf. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 04/11/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 17, 2017 DUE DATE: May 2, 2017 SUBJECT: Site/Grading - The Mark TO: Tri Miller, PE LOCATION: 3025 S Kino Parkway REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP17-0079 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP17-0079). 2) There is a typo in General note 2 on sheet 3 where the word "use" is misspelled as "sue." Please correct. 3) Per TSM 2-01.4.1.C6 there is a requirement to show that the improvement plans match the geotechnical report and incorporate any pertinent recommendations. Per Section 4.7.1 of the Geotechnical report there is a requirement that Main Drives and Truck Access areas have a pavement thickness of 3" AC on 6" ABC or 6" Portland Cement Concrete on 4" ABC. Keynote 7 on sheets 4 and 5 show a pavement section of 3" AC on 4" ABC is being proposed for heavy paving. Please update accordingly. Please note that Section A on sheet 12 shows it correctly. 4) Per TSM 2-01.4.1.C6 there is a requirement to show that the improvement plans match the geotechnical report and incorporate any pertinent recommendations. Per Section 4.7.2 of the Geotechnical report "All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of 4 inches. Grading note 9 indicates that 3,000 psi concrete is proposed unless otherwise specified. There is no specification within the details for concrete areas that are to be traffic loaded for 4,000 psi concrete. Please see keynote 11 on sheet 9 where a concrete valley gutter is called out as an area of concern where 4,000 psi concrete is required by the geotechnical report. Detail B on sheet 12 should be updated to reflect the 4,000 psi requirement. 5) Per UDC 7.14.3 (Detention Retention Manual), Section 3.5.1, items 3 and 5 a geotechnical report is required to show infiltration test results that result in a 12 hour drain down time of the retention basins. Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.3 the required retention volume must infiltrate into the ground and may not be discharged from the site. Please show spot grades per AM 2-06.4.9N to confirm onsite infiltration. There are several retention basins that show outlet structures such that the full retention requirements is not being met. In order to do detention in lieu of retention, appropriate justification is required and a TSMR must be approved by PDSD and TDOT. The Stormdrain summary table on figure 4 of the drainage report and the plans will need to be updated if a TSMR is not approved. 6) Per TSM 8-01.9.0, figure 3, provide trash enclosures that comply with current standards or gain approval of a TSMR to allow any exceptions. This impacts the waste stream calculation recommendation for using a 34 cubic yard compactor with 3 pick-ups a week shown on sheet 1. Please update as required. 7) Section 3.0 of the drainage report indicates that a residential development with a RAC greater than three requires 5- year threshold retention. Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.4 a residential development with a RAC between three and six requires 2 -year threshold retention. A residential development with a RAC greater than 6 requires 5-year threshold retention. In this case the RAC is greater than six and this is just a typo. 8) The required retention volume shown on page 7 of the drainage report has been rounded to 0.080 acre feet. Per the calculation the required volume is 0.084 when using the same number of significant digits. Please update accordingly. 9) Figure 5 of the drainage report has used asterisks to indicate some basins that have bleed pipes. Per AM 2-06.4.9N the plans or this table should be updated to address the basins that are showing bleed pipes in plan view that are not called out by an astericks in this table. This also relates to the TSMR that will be required to use detention in lieu of retention per previous comment. 10) Per AM 2-06.4.9N please update the stormdrain summary table to reflect the use of RCP for stormdrain as is required in the right-of-way per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.3, item 9 for SD 1-1 and SD 5-1. 11) Per UDC 7.14.4, section 2.3.1.5D show if any of the drainage structures are to be dedicated to the City of Tucson for ownership. TDOT approval of improvement (ie. PIA) plans is required prior to approval of this Development Package. 12) Per AM 2-06.4.9N there is manhole and catch basin detail missing on figure 6 of the drainage report when compared to sheets 9 and 10 of the development package. Please update drainage report accordingly. 13) Figure 6 of the drainage report has labeled two different stretches of pipe as SD 1-4. One of these should be labeled SD 1-3. Please update accordingly. 14) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.4E Mannings N values should be included in the drainage report for the stormdrain system. Please update accordingly. 15) Paving note 10 on sheet 2 calls out a design speed for Broadway Blvd of 10 miles per hour. Please update as appropriate. 16) Private Sewer notes 5, 31 and 34 on sheet 3 seem to have been included with incomplete information and should be evaluated for applicability. 17) Per TSM 10-01.41A.1.a a new sidewalk on local streets is required to be 5 feet in width. Please update keynote 8 on sheets 4 and 5 to reflect this requirements. Please update all applicable linework as required on all sheets. 18) Per AM 2.06.4.9N please update the flow line elevation for Catch Basin 1-2 as shown on sheet 9 of the development package to reflect the 2405.3 elevation calculate/shown in the profile report in Appendix C. 19) There are several keynote 13 (retaining wall callouts that are missing from sheets 9 and 10 of the development package where a top of wall and base of wall elevations are called out. 20) Keynote 25 calls out 6" stormdrain on sheets 9 and 10 without supporting calculations in the drainage report. Please update accordingly. There is a flow line elevation of 07.5 in the loading zone as shown on sheet 9 that is draining towards a manhole as shown on sheet 10 where the flow line elevations are called out as 8.30 and 8.40 respectively. Please update to allow positive drainage. Please also provide supporting calculations and depiction within the drainage figures for the stormdrain design on the west side of the development. 21) The 24" flow line of 4.21 and 18" flow line of 4.46 as shown on catch basin 1-1 do not match the profile table for invert elevations from the drainage report. Please update the flow line elevations where keynote 21 is called out on sheet 10 as appropriate per AM 2-06.4.9N. 22) There is a base of retaining wall elevation callout of 89.5 on the east side of sheet 10 where the top of wall elevation is 10.2. Please fix this typo and add a keynote 13 designation for clarity. 23) The flow line call outs at the southeast corner of sheet 10 of 2.1 and 0.10 do not match the profile outlet elevations in appendix C of the drainage report. Please update per AM 2-06.4.9N. 24) Keynote 7 and 8 are not called out on sheet 10 in locations where they would be anticipated. Please update accordingly. 25) The description for keynote 13 on sheet 13 should be updated to include the entire description. 26) Keynote 18 is inconsistent with grading note 27 on sheet 2. Please update accordingly. 27) There appears to be a typo in the flow line elevation where keynote 20 is called out on sheet 10. Please update accordingly. 28) The stormdrain slope of 1.8% called out at the southeast corner of the site does not match the profile slope in appendix C of the drainage report. Please update per AM 2-06.4.9N. 29) The Garage entrance as shown in detail T on sheet 14 should be clarified to show drainage towards water harvesting areas per UDC 7.6.6C2. Other hardscape slopes should be updated as appropriate. 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. |
| 04/20/2017 | KLEE1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning Comments. |
| 04/20/2017 | KELLY LEE | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Kelly Lee Lead Planner PROJECT: The Mark at Tucson Multi-Family Residential Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0079 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 20, 2017 DUE DATE: May 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 04.04.2018. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.10 - The legend on Sheet 3 is missing symbols as identified on the site plan. Please include all symbols shown on the site plan in the legend. (i.e.: cross hatching in parking garage, under sidewalk scupper and small squares along boundaries). In addition, keynote 6 identifies there is a trash room but it has not been labeled on the plan. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - Provide the administrative street address and development package case number, DP17-0 079 adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.4.B - On the location map, label Aviation Parkway, Tyndall Avenue and 10th Street. 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 2-06.4.7.A.5 - The density calculations are incorrect for C-2 and C-3 zoning. 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. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide information for the existing easements on-site. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site should be stated. 2-06.4.8.C - If parking lanes exist adjacent to the site on Tyndall, 10th or Park Avenue, please provide a dimensioned note. 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. 2-06.4.9.E - A lot combination must be approved and recorded prior to Development Package approval. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Please show the accessible parking spaces closest to the elevators. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - On sheet 1, indicate on the notes how many loading spaces are provided. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - In regards to long term and short term bicycle parking, I have the following comments: " The bicycle parking details refer to the City of Tucson Land Use Code; please replace with City of Tucson Unified Development Code. " What type of surface materials will be utilized for the short term bicycle parking? " I count approximately 364 bike lockers provided, however, the notes on sheet 1 indicate there are only 298 provided. 2-06.4.9.O - Add setback distances to all proposed structures. Also, in order to provide a full review of the building setbacks, we will need a copy of the proposed elevations. 2-06.4.9.R - Please show all proposed pedestrian circulation including along the access drive and throughout the development. 2-06.4.9.T - Please show the location of the trash room. It is shown on the keynotes but not within the site plan, sheet 4 and 5. 2-06.4.9.V - Please verify the type of mail system that will be utilized. Will there be gang mailboxes? If so, where will they be located? 2-06.4.9.W - If proposed, please provide the locations and dimensions of all freestanding monument signs. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Kelly Lee, (520) 837-6999 or Kelly.Lee@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 04/25/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | On sheet 16 of 24, can only find a single keynote 1 (new fire service). Is it the intent for one service to feed all buildings? Please provide details on how each building will be fed. |
| 04/27/2017 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | April 27, 2017 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP17-0079 PROJECT NAME: The Mark at Tucson PROJECT ADDRESS: 999 E Broadway Blvd. PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT The proposed improvements in the right of way are acceptable. However the following will need to be modified on the plan or acknowledged. 1. A new 5 ft. sidewalk is required along the project site. 2. Ensure all sidewalk and pedestrian ramps meet current ADA requirements. 3. At time of construction a right of way permit from TDOT will be required. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/02/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/02/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Locate utility services (transformers, panels, etc.) behind the street landscape borders and add screening per UDC Table 7.6.4-1. 2) Obtain approval for any landscaping in the public right of way. UDC 7.6.4.F |
| 05/03/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Show the invert elevations for manhole 9908-25. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/04/2017 | 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2017 | MMENDIB1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |