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: DP18-0067
Parcel: 11705033A

Address:
314 E 6TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP18-0067
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/29/2018 KELLY LEE START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/29/2018 KELLY LEE OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed Agency notified for information only.
03/29/2018 KELLY LEE UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed Agency notified for information only.
03/29/2018 KELLY LEE OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed Agency notified for information only.
04/09/2018 CLAURIE1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied DATE: April 26, 2018

TO: Carolyn Laurie, Principal Planner
Development Services Department, City of Tucson
Alexandra Hines, AICP
Lead Planner at Planning and Development Services, City of Tucson

FROM: Corky Poster, Architect (#10611) and Planner (AICP)
COT On-Call Design Professional

RE: 340 East 6th Street, The Union on 6th, IID-15-01

I have reviewed the Development Package for Union on 6th Street with Professional seals dated 3-18-18 and 3-20-18, 30 sheets, for the purpose of determining its conformance with the Submittal equirements of the IID. My review is only for information presented using only the IID as the evaluation criteria. No other City of Tucson Development Standrads were used. That, I assume is the province of others.

1 & 2 of 30: If the Architect listed is Vaught Frye Larson Architects, why has our interaction been with a23 Studios? Who will be the architect of record? Who is the project design architect? What will be lost in communication in the hand-off from a23 to VFLA?
3 & 4 of 30: Section 5.12.8 of the IID A. 1 f. requires that the sidewalks are done in compliance with the City's Streetscape Design Manual. What is the net width of the sidewalk on 6th Street? The required pedestrian 30' pedestrian easement going from 5th Avenue to Herbert is not provided. (See Table 5.12-WTA-3, 8, K). This will be subject to further studies and best practices discussion. There is what appears to be a pedestrian connection between Herbert and 4th Avenue, ranging from 4.9' to 7.2'. This is not required as per IID. How will it function? How will access be limited? It appears to be a potential accumulator of debris or a possibly unsafe path for pedestrians with no easy exit in dangerous situations.
5 & 6 of 30: No comment other than the total parking spaces does not equal the total number of units as required by the IID for residential development.
7 & 8 of 30: No additional comments.
9 & 10 of 30: No additional comments.
11 & 12 of 30: No additional comments.
13 & 14 of 30: Net sidewalk dimensions still missing here.
15 & 16 of 30: Net sidewalk dimensions still missing here.
17 & 18 of 30: Section 5.12.8 of the IID A.2.a requires 50% shade cover. The canopies shown appear to meet or exceed this standard.
19 & 20 of 30: No additional comments.
21 & 22 of 30: No additional comments.
23 of 30: No additional comments.
24 of 30: The preference for Retail Trade uses at street level is only partially met.
Table 5.12-FAS-2 suggests that only a lack of market demand would justify not providing such uses also contingent on meeting all other requirements of the table. Please explain why the 2/3 of the 6th Street frontage between Herbert and 4th Avenue is not street activity retail or other type of public use.
25 of 30: No additional comments.
26 of 30: No additional comments.
27-30 of 30: The required upper massing setback of 50' along the east side of Herbert in the Fourth Avenue Sub-Area (FAS) of the Downtown Links of the IID (E in Table 5.12-FAS-2) is not provided. This will be subject to further studies and best practices discussion.
04/18/2018 GARY WITTWER DOT LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Brick Paving in heavy pedestrian areas. The City has moved away from pavers in the main pedestrian areas due to tripping hazard liability and maintenance. Pavers could be accepted if placed on a concrete sub-base. Pavers may not be the look that will blend with 4th Ave.

2. Tree planting on 6th St. While we do have tree planting right back of curb in the downtown areas, they usually have a parking buffer before the travel lane. We need to have a setback when this close to the travel lanes.

3. Raised planters on 6th St. We need to have at least a 12" setback off curb.

4. Plant materials close to peds. If I'm reading the planting plan correctly - the ocotillo are too close to the ped path. Hard to read the smaller plant materials.

5. The irrigation plan needs to follow all the standard rules. No mainline, no RCV and no controllers in ROW.

Gary
04/23/2018 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Needs Review April 23, 2018
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP18-0067
PROJECT NAME: Union on 6th
PROJECT ADDRESS: 314 E 6th Street
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required: The following items must be revised or added to the Development package.

1. A Traffic Impact analysis is required to determine any transportation improvements or traffic mitigation measures.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
04/23/2018 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Please indicate on plans locations of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 507.5 for guidance.
Confirm with Tucson Water a backflow preventer for the 6" fire line is required for this project. Not required by Tucson Fire.
04/25/2018 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:
Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.
The landscape plan cannot be approved until the overlay review is complete and obtained all the appropriate divisions reviews and approvals for the project.

The following is applicable for this site.
5.12.11. DOWNTOWN LINKS SUBDISTRICT (DLS)
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
A complete or partial exception to the landscaping and screening requirements in Section 7.6 may be granted by the PDSD Director, if shade along sidewalks, pedestrian circulation paths or outdoor patios is provided for pedestrians and customers in accordance Section 5.12.6.A.2. Alternative pedestrian access that creates connectivity between public entrances to the project and abutting sidewalk is allowed if no safety hazard is created. All pedestrian access must conform to the accessibility standards of the City's Building Code.
Streetscape Design
Streetscape design must comply with the street design standards in the Technical Manual and the Streetscape Design Policy.

Any one or more of the following types of landscaping and improvements may be used to comply with this section:
(2) Shade trees in the right-of-way;
(3) Green walls or green roofs; and/or
(4) Shade structures, such as awnings.

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.
b) 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.
04/25/2018 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Passed Agency notified for information only.
04/25/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA

Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040

Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
04/25/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change ***Attachment can be viewed in documents folder in PRO.***

DP18-0067 Union on 6th / 1st Submittal 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
04/26/2018 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Because of the development location, it will have no impact to any ADOT facilities. Thank you.

Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov>
04/26/2018 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
04/27/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change FROM: Alexandra Hines, AICP, Lead Planner

PROJECT: DP18-0067 Union on 6th (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2018

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings with a detailed response letter, which states how all zoning review 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).

1. UDC 3.3.3.G.5.c - An applicant has one year from the date of application, 3/23/18, to obtain approval of a site plan.

2. 2-06.3.5 - Remove stamp and reserve a blank three-inch by five-inch space in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an electronic approval stamp.

3. 2-06.4.3 - Provide activity number, DP18-0067, and relevant activity number, T17SA00360, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

4. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Provide a general note with the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the activity number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any, and specify which lots are affected.

5. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide vacation of five (5) foot telephone easement in conflict with building #2, prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

6. 2-06.4.9.A - Show combination information for lots under building #1.

7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide or request modification of the number of vehicle parking spaces required. Correct the total required (UDC), 343 not 342, per UDC 7.4.3.G.

8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - Provide the city's required parking agreement for N 4th Ave and N 5th Ave, if applicable (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable).

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Correct the bicycle parking calculation to reflect the use area breakdown.

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide the bedroom breakdown next to the use area breakdown to assist in bicycle parking review.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Remove from asterisk note or showcase how bicycle parking and loading zone are modified per 5.12.11.

12. 2-06.4.9.I - Show the future right-of-way, up to one-half (1/2), to complete the street width for E 6th St MS&R.

13. 2-06.4.9.I - Provide the city's TDOT approval for use of alley, N Herbert Ave.

14. 2-06.4.9.O - Develop or request modification to the zoning setback along the future right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width for E 6th St MS&R per UDC Article 5.4.7. The proposed setback is zero (0) feet from E 6th St, N 5th Ave, N 4th Ave, and N Herbert Ave.

15. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide or request modification for the maximum building height, seventy-five (75) feet, for the C-3 zone. The proposed height is eighty-six (86) feet.

16. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide or request modification for the maximum residential density, eighty-seven (87) units/acre, for the C-3 zone. Correct the residential density calculation for actual, 254 not 253 units. The proposed residential density is 180.7 units per/acre.

17. 2-06.4.9.S - Show on-site ADA path from building #1 to building #2 per TSM 7-01.3.3.B or request modification. The proposed path crosses N Herbert Ave to connect the buildings.

18. UDC 7.3.2 - Mitigate effect or take measures to minimize the adverse effects of the shading.

Additional review comments may be forthcoming due to response to zoning review comments or other review agency comments including owner driven changes to the plan. Provide the director's decision letter for IID overlay in submittal to obtain development package approval.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Alexandra Hines at (520) 837-6975 or alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov.
04/27/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Environmental & General Services Department (EGSD) has completed our review of DP18-0067 for the Union on 6th property. Two buildings are proposed for this site which will contain parking, sales and office space and multifamily residential facilities. Building 1 will contain 244,350 square feet of space including 68,000 square feet of parking area. Building 2 will contain 56,350 square feet of floor area.

My calculation of the waste generation rate in Building 1 does not agree with Cypress' calculation. Cypress' waste generation calculations are provided on General Note 22 on Sheet 1 of 30. Cypress stated that 675.7 tons of waste will be generated from Building 1. The amount of waste to be generated from Building 2 does not appear to be specified in General Note 22.

EGSD waste generation calculations are:

Building 1

Sales / Office Space 4,126 square feet x 0.0013 tons per square foot = 5.4 tons of waste per year

Multifamily Dwellings 172,224 square feet x 0.0057 tons per square foot = 981.7 tons of waste per year

Total Waste Generation for Building 1 per year. 5.4 tons + 981.7 tons = 987.1 tons

Building 2

Sales / Office Space 3,390 square feet x 0.0013 tons per square foot = 4.4 tons of waste per year

Multifamily Dwellings 52,960 square feet x 0.0057 tons per square foot = 301.9 tons of waste per year

Total Waste Generation for Building 2 per year. 4.4 tons + 301.9 tons = 306.3 tons

Please have the applicant review the waste generation calculations and make any adjustments, if needed. Also, make any adjustments in the compactor and metal waste container design needed due to any waste generation adjustments.

Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review. Thank you.

Tom Ryan, P. E.
City of Tucson - Environmental & General Services Department
04/27/2018 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Revise the SWPPP NOI instructions to reference "myDEQ" instead of SmartNOI. SmartNOI is no longer active. http://azdeq.gov/node/331
2. The solid waste stream calculation section seems to be missing information. Please confirm that it is complete and coherent.
3. Include the cut and fill quantities in the notes.
4. Remove the bollards where the sidewalk intersect Herbert Avenue or provide correspondence with transportation allowing their use.
5. Clearly indicate that a track access permit may be required for construction adjacent to the streetcar tracks.
6. Show drainage patterns and demonstrate how water harvesting will be maximized.
04/27/2018 AHINES2 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change See zoning review comments.
05/03/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES COT NON-DSD REVIEW Approved I have no issues with the on-street parking plan, nor with the garage parking plan.

I am pleased to see the addition of the commercial space along 5th Avenue as I had suggested in the IID meeting. This will help to activate the 5th Avenue frontage, encourage pedestrian activity, provide more eyes on the street, and present a more appealing and lively face to that side of the building. Depending on the nature of the business, it can be an amenity for the new residents as well.

The presence of the small commercial space will help to mitigate the lack of pedestrian interest or activation that is characteristic of off-street parking that is brought up to the lot line as it does with this development.

Thank you.

Donovan Durband, M.S., CAPP
Administrator, Park Tucson Division
Department of Transportation, City of Tucson
110 E. Pennington St., #150
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
Office: 520.791.5071
Direct: 520.837.6506
Fax: 520.791.5782
Donovan.Durband@tucsonaz.gov
http://www.TucsonAZ.gov/Park-Tucson
05/04/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change Plan Returned for Corrections Notice: DP18-0067Project Description: E SITE/GRADE/SWPPP - UNION ON 6TH
To see reviewer's comments about your plans, please visit https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pro/pdsd/activity_search.You will need to enter the activity number shown above to see comments about the plan.
This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Prepare a Comment Response Letter which tells the reviewers what changes have been made to the plan and what comments are addressed. When you have made the necessary corrections to the plans, please resubmit the following items to PDSD Filedrop and the plans will re-enter the review cycle:1) Corrected plan set2) Items requested by review staff
Please remember to name your files appropriately, for example: second (2nd) submittal,2_plan_set.pdf2_response_letter.pdfPlan Returned for Corrections Notice: DP18-0067Project Description: E SITE/GRADE/SWPPP - UNION ON 6TH
To see reviewer's comments about your plans, please visit https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pro/pdsd/activity_search.You will need to enter the activity number shown above to see comments about the plan.
This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Prepare a Comment Response Letter which tells the reviewers what changes have been made to the plan and what comments are addressed. When you have made the necessary corrections to the plans, please resubmit the following items to PDSD Filedrop and the plans will re-enter the review cycle:1) Corrected plan set2) Items requested by review staff
Please remember to name your files appropriately, for example: second (2nd) submittal,2_plan_set.pdf2_response_letter.pdf
05/04/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Reqs Change Should any ground or aerial encroachments into City right-of-way come to be included, applicant is requested to contact the Real Estate Division to apply for easements. Any development in Herbert Ave or in the 4th and 5th Aves and 6th St RoW that cannot be addressed by a PIA should be directed to Real Estate as well.

John Cahill
Interim Real Estate Administrator
City Dept. of Transportation
201 North Stone Av. 6th Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 837-6768

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/04/2018 AHINES2 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed