Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP17-0238
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/29/2017 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/02/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The total flow for the private sewage collection system for this project appears to be in excess of 3000 gallons per day. The design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson. Reference A. R. S. 49-104 (B) (13). |
| 10/04/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | No Parking - Fire Lane signs are required on both sides of the road (every 100', or double sided signs, staggered, every 200') and the ends of the turnaround. Please indicate how sprinklers will be supplied. |
| 10/17/2017 | KELLY LEE | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP17-0238 2nd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Please see the attached plan for how the residences will be addressed. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 10/18/2017 | 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: Blacklidge Development - Units 1-13 Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0238 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 18, 2017 DUE DATE: October 24, 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. 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 September 26, 2018. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.10 - A legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing is to be provided, preferably on the first sheet. 1. COMMENT: There are dashed lines on the site plan sheet that are not annotated with a keynote nor do they appear to be listed in the Symbols Legend Block of the cover sheet. The dashed line work shall be annotated with a key note or listed in the symbols legend. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP17-0238, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 3. COMMENT: In order to verify the lot coverage calculation, list the building footprint square footage, it is assume that each building is utilizing the same model floor plan. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 4. COMMENT: FYI, if on street parking is allowed on Blacklidge Drive, an additional 8 feet can be used for the placement of the SVT's. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 5. COMMENT: Label the cross section symbol for the PAAL to read B-4; the cross-section drawing is located on sheet 4. Clarify by detail drawing what the design of the on-site sidewalk system look like. It is not clear on the plan if the sidewalk is flush with the pavement with extruded curb other than at the driveway entrance to the garages or if the overall sidewalk is raised with aprons. It may be necessary to include a north cross section of the PAAL adjacent the sidewalk depicting the sidewalk and driveway design. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 6. COMMENT: Clarify if the proposed units include porches, overhangs, etc fronting along the PAAL. If so any structure beyond the front wall must be setback at least one foot from the edge of the PAAL. Include with the next DP submittal copies of the building plans for reference. Revise the Accessible parking spaces sign detail to show the 7'-0" clearance from finished grade to the bottom of the van accessible sign, see redlines sheet 4. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 7. COMMENT: The required interior building setbacks for this development are based on the greater of 10 feet or ¾ the height of the wall adjacent to the interior property line, see section 6.3.3.C and section 6.3 table 6.3-2.A Non-residential use to Residential Zone. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 8. COMMENT: Label the cross and longitudinal slopes for all sidewalks. 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 any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 10/19/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 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: Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Interior Landscape Borders Interior landscape borders are required as a buffer and visual transition along the common property lines between adjacent land uses and zones as follows, except as provided in Section 7.6.4.C.4, Exceptions to the Landscape Border Standards. a. Interior landscape borders are required as determined in Table 7.6.4-1, which ranks land uses and zones based upon their land use intensity and the impact a use will have on adjacent land uses. Interior landscape borders are required between multifamily development and residential zoned properties. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 10/24/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | see zoning comments |
| 10/25/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Encroachment in the floodplain requires an encroachment analysis. Provide an analysis showing no adverse impact on nearby properties. 2. Address whether the perimeter wall provides sufficient flow-through capacity to prevent adverse impacts to adjacent properties. 3. Provide a waste stream calculation for the project. (Note that the minimum capacity must be at least 45 gallons per unit.) 4. The access to the solid waste enclosure doesn't seem to meet the standards. Show the maneuverability on the plan. 5. Provide for the collection of both waste and recycling (TS 8-01.4.0.H) |
| 10/26/2017 | KELLY LEE | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2017 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |