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 - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP18-0067
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/18/2018 KELLY LEE START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
07/18/2018 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
07/18/2018 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.
07/18/2018 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change In a pre-construction meeting held at Fire Central, it was agreed to allow the building to exceed 75' above grade in the south west corner of the project (high rise classification) in exchange for an additional fire hydrant to be installed along 5th Avenue. It the response letter, it was stated no additional hyrants are proposed. Is it now your intention to classify this building as a high rise?
07/18/2018 GARY WITTWER DOT LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. It still looks like you might have some Ocotillo in the small planters on 6th St.
2. I don't believe there will be a bike lane on 6th so this means that the tree canopy will need to be trimmed up to 15' vertical above the face of curb or edge of travel lane.
3. I realize that the building is in the SVT getting on to 6th Street, but I am concerned with the row of tree trunks, raised planters with planting. This may be a hazard.
4. Be sure that all plants are on the approved plant list. Some of the Aloe is not.
5. Please check with TDOT Real Estate for placement of irrigation is ROW, and becoming part of Blue Stake.
6. You may already have thestandard notes for planting in ROW, if not please add them.
END
Gary
07/20/2018 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change ***See attachment in docuemnts table on PRO.***

Pima County Addressing is returning DP18-0067 Union on 6th / 2nd Submittal for corrections. Please see the attached plan for comments.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Nicholas Jordan
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-9623
07/23/2018 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Tucson Code 15-10.1.E requires the availability of 45 gallons of refuse container capacity for each dwelling unit between scheduled collection services. Show how this requirement will be met or provide a waiver from the Director of Environmental Services as allowed by the code.
2. The buildings are shown encroaching into the sight visibility triangles. The SVTs must be kept clear between 30 inches and 6 feet.
3. Clearly show the SVTs for the intersection of 6th Street with 4th Avenue and for the intersection of 6th Street with 5th Avenue.
4. Add a note that all work near the Streetcar Tracks may require a track access permit.
5. Clearly show where the storm drain associated with 2 discharges.
07/26/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 26, 2018, 2nd Submittal Responses, July 25, 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 Requirements of the IID. My review is only for information presented using only the IID as the evaluation criteria. No other City of Tucson Development Standards were used. That, I assume is the province of others.

2nd Review Comments below:

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? This has been discussed and I now understand the relationship. My comment about communication is still a concern.
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. This has been addressed elsewhere.
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. Discussed elsewhere in the Design Review comments.
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. Discussed elsewhere in the Design Review comments.
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. Discussed elsewhere in the Design Review comments.
07/27/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change Environmental & General Services has completed our review of the second submittal for the Union on 6th (DP18-0067) from a solid waste management standpoint. This Development Plan was dated June 22, 2018.



The waste generation calculations were reviewed and found to be correct. The applicant is proposing to use a waste compactor to reduce the volume of waste to be removed from the site by 75 percent. A total volume (refuse + recycling materials ) of 19.4 cubic yards will require removal from the site each week. It is proposed that two 6 cubic yard dumpsters be used for refuse and recycling material storage and the dumpsters be serviced two times per week.



The site owner will move the dumpsters out to the alley on the day of servicing. The alley is not shown on Sheet 3 of 30 in the Development Package. Please have the applicant identify the location of the alley where the dumpsters will be positioned for servicing. Also, have the applicant state how the dumpsters will be moved from the internal trash / compactor area inside the building to the alley. Depending on the manufacturer, a 6 cubic yard dumpster could have an unloaded weight of 2,700 pounds. The compacted waste could weigh 600 pounds per cubic yard resulting in a total of 3,600 pounds of compacted waste. The total weight of the dumpster and the waste could be around 6,300 pounds. Oftentimes, a waste caddy or dumpster mover (small motorized devise that pulls or pushes the dumpster to the service location) is used to move the dumpster. The applicant should also check to be sure the weight of the compacted refuse does not exceed the capacity of the dumpster.



Let me know if questions. Thanks.

Tom Ryan, P. E.
07/27/2018 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
08/01/2018 AHINES2 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change See zoning comments.
08/01/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change Plan Returned for Corrections Notice: DP18-0067Project Description: E SITE/GRADE/SWPPP/IID - 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 20 working day review cycle:1) Corrected plan set2) Items requested by review staff
Please remember to name your files appropriately, for example: third (3rd) submittal,3_plan_set.pdf3_response_letter.pdf
Alexandra Hines, AICP
Lead Planner at Planning and Development Services, City of Tucson
201 N Stone Ave 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 837-6975 - alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov
08/01/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change FROM: Alexandra Hines, Lead Planner

PROJECT: DP18-0067 Union on 6th (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 23, 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. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Acknowledged that the following comment #4 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

3. 2-06.4.8.B - Acknowledged that the following comment #5 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

4. 2-06.4.9.A - Acknowledged that the following comment #6 is still outstanding pending approval. >> Show combination information for lots under building #1.

5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Acknowledged that the following comment #7 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - From comment #8, where did the short-term bicycle parking in the courtyard of building #2 go? Where is the parking outlined in the calculation? >> Correct the bicycle parking calculation to reflect the use area breakdown.

7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - From comment #8, the bicycle use area does not seem to match general note 5. >> Correct the bicycle parking calculation to reflect the use area breakdown.

8. 2-06.4.9.I - From comment #12, based on the MS&R map future ROW for 6th is 90' the detail does not reflect this. >> Show the future right-of-way, up to one-half (1/2), to complete the street width for E 6th St MS&R.

9. 2-06.4.9.O - Acknowledged that the following comment #14 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

10. 2-06.4.9.Q - Acknowledged that the following comment #15 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

11. 2-06.4.9.Q - Acknowledged that the following comment #16 is still outstanding pending modification approval. >> 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.

12. Is there a balcony on the 3rd floor 3bedroom townhouse facing the existing historic building? If yes, is there mitigation?

13. Provide active (enabled) address on plan set and application. 314 E 6th St does not exist, while 316 and 340 exist.

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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/01/2018 AHINES2 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed