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 - DP17-0106
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/03/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/15/2017 | KELLY LEE | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | DP17-0106 / 1st Submittal of La Suprema Apartments is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments. 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 |
| 05/17/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: La Suprema Apartments Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0106 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 18, 2017 DUE DATE: June 01, 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 May 02, 2018. 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. 1/8" = 1'-0" is not an engineering scale. 2. 2-06.3.6 - Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of all sheets. The required stamp can be found at http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/development-permits under Development Package. 3. 2-06.3.7 - The project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet. 4. 2-06.3.8 - Move the north arrow and scale to the upper right corner of the sheet. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 5. 2-06.4.1 - Provide the following information for the property owner on the right half of the cover sheet; mailing and email addresses, and phone number. 6. 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 within the title block. 7. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0106 , adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 8. 2-06.4.4 - 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 9. 2-06.4.4.B - Identify all streets that abut the subject property; and, 10. 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 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 11. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing use of the property as classified per the UDC. 12. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - As this property is located within and Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ), HC-3, historic review is required per UDC Article 5.8.8. This review must be completed prior to approval of the development package. 13. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ), Individual Parking Plan (IPP) and a Parking Design Modification (PDMR) are proposed provide the HPZ, IPP & PDMR case numbers adjacent to the title block. Also provide a general note stating the case number, date of approval, what was modified and if applicable any conditions of approval. If there are conditions of approval demonstrate on the plan how these conditions are met. 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. 14. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide the bearing for both the west and south property line. 15. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the following information for both Main and Simpson right-of-ways (ROW); right-of-way width, dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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. 16. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - The following comments will need to be addressed prior to Zoning providing final PDMR requirement comments; a. Provide a PAAL width dimension at the narrowest point at the north end of the vehicle parking area. b. Fully dimension the proposed back-up spur shown at the north end of the vehicle parking area. 17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per 2012 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1102.6 one (1) van accessible vehicle parking space is required. 18. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a detail for both a standard and accessible vehicle parking space. The details should provide a wheel stop location dimension per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. The van accessible vehicle parking space detail should demonstrate how the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502 are met. 19. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G Fractional Amounts. When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the vehicle parking space calculation should show 11 spaces required. 20. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Until the required van accessible vehicle parking space is provided on the plan the provided number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. 21. 2-06.4.9.O - Per UDC Article 11.4.6 Definitions - E, Established Area Setback, A term used to describe the required building setback from a street applicable as follows. When street frontage of the property is on a street other than one designated a major street or route by the adopted Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan. That said as Main Avenue is designated as a collector and the COT MS&R map this site is considered developing are for street perimeter yards setback requirements. The street perimeter yard setback for Main Avenue should be listed as 21'-0" or the height (H) of the exterior building wall, whichever is greatest, measured to the back of curb. Simpson Street should be listed as 21'-0" or the height (H) of the exterior building wall, whichever is greatest, measured to the nearest edge of travel lane. 22. 2-06.4.9.O - Per UDC Article 6.3.3.C For the purposes of determining the applicable dimensional standards, multifamily development is considered a nonresidential use. See Section 11.3.7.A.3 for the definition of multifamily development. That said under "PROJECT INFORMATION, SETBACKS" you list (RESIDENTAIL USE) and this should be listed as nonresidential. 23. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building. 24. 2-06.4.9.R - Show the required accessible route from the accessible route to the building entrance. 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 |
| 05/18/2017 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/18/2017 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments. |
| 05/26/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. As noted, a TSMR is required for use of APC's at a 7-unit apartment complex. 2. Indicate the standard detail for the new driveway apron and the new vertical curb. 3. If any landscaping is required or proposed, the landscape area must be depressed 6 inches for water harvesting. |
| 05/26/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The location and size of water lines and fire hydrants. b. The location and size of sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of the manholes upstream and downstream of the sewer connection; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. c. The points of connection to existing public sewers. d. The first floor elevation for the building Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/30/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | All 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. 5.8. "H" HISTORIC PRESERVATION ZONE (HPZ) Landscaping Plantings and other ornamental features shall reflect the historic period of the subject structure. Landscaping may be reviewed in the context of a required HPZ review; landscaping alone shall not be considered through an HPZ review. HPZ review must be complete prior to landscape approval |
| 05/31/2017 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/31/2017 | ACONNOR1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |