Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP18-0259
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/27/2019 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/19/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The only "next upstream manhole" is 9444-18. Provide the rim elevation of the manhole and the first floor elevation of the additions to the existing buildings. |
| 07/22/2019 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data 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. Prior to landscape approval ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
| 07/26/2019 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Multi-family Development - Convert Storage Area to 4th Unit Development Package (3rd Review) 231 W. Laguna Street DP18-0259 - R-3 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 24, 2019 DUE DATE: July 26, 2019 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 October 18, 2019. *** The previous comments and standard have been left as reference. For zoning responses, address only the "Follow up to previous comment" made by zoning on the latest plan review unless directed otherwise. (Some of the comments include more than one specific requirement that needs to be addressed.) Previous Information Comment: This site is considered non-conforming for multiple standards and because of the expansion of an additional unit (density) this project has been reviewed for full code compliance (per Steve Shields PDSD Zoning Manager). Address all review agency comments and revise the Development Package. Resubmit the DP for review including a response memo stating how all review agency comments were addressed on the DP. 1. The previous comment was not addressed correctly. Previous comment 1 / 4: The location map was not drawn as required by the standards below. Revise the location map accordingly. 2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet. Previous Comment 4: Provide a location map as noted by the standards below, 2-06.44 through 2-06.4.4.C and call or email me for a sample of a location map. The location map shall be drawn based on the section of the site location. 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. 2-06.4.4.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area; 2-06.4.4.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 2. The previous comment was not addressed correctly. Read the previous comment and revise the address to state "231 W. Laguna Street". Revise the street address on all sheets and in the title block. Previous comment 3 / 21: Revise the administrative street address next to the title block on all sheets to state "231 W. Laguna Street" 3. There was no response to the previous comment as to how the applicant or would proceed. Previous comment 5 / 23: As noted already noted this is a non-conforming site that does not meet code in many areas. Several variances will be required prior to approval of the DP. See all reviewer discipline comments for possible variances that may be required. This site is considered non-conforming and it is clear that there are several vehicle and pedestrian access requirements that have not been demonstrated or will comply with today's UDC requirements. Approval of a Board of Adjustment variances may be required in order for this DP to be approved as presented. (See engineering comments plus additional zoning comments below as it relates to the vehicle and pedestrian access requirements. 4. The previous comment was not fully addressed. Per the Bicycle calculation note on sheet 3, the note states that the 2 Short term facilities are proposed and optional 5 long term facilities. The long term is a secure facility that requires a storage room or area that includes a roof cover and is locked. If the bicycle storage area adjacent to the building one is proposed for short term facilities only the area can be fenced but not a locked area. Short term is for visitors that would not have access to a secure bicycle storage area. Remove any portion of this note that related to long term facilities. A separate note has been added stating that all long term would be in every residence. Previous comment 7 / 27: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. The fully dimensioned detail drawings as noted by the standard were not included on the DP. Also, the short and long term facilities have different criteria. The short term facilities cannot be in the storage area for the long term facilities if the facility is a locked storage area. The short term facilities must be available at all times and should be distributed on the site so that at least one facility is within 50 feet of each public entrance. You can review section 7.4.9 for design regulations for the short and long term facilities. The storage area for the long term facilities must be in compliance with UDC Section 7.4.9.D. 1 -.5 and must be demonstrated on the DP. An option is to add a note that all long term bicycle spaces will be provided within each residence. 5. Address the following items related to pedestrian circulation and vehicle parking: You have made some changes to the pedestrian circulation to try and meet compliance with TS 7-01. However in revising the drawing it has caused additional issues that will have to be addressed either through a TSMR or PDMR review and approval process. a.1 - Vehicle parking space #8 must be designed so that it is 10 feet wide; Per 7.4.6.D.2.b - A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. a.2 - Vehicle parking spaces 1 - 5 must also be dimensioned as 10 feet for the same reason as space #8. b.1 - Pedestrian sidewalks are required between a building and an access lane or PAAL. That said the sidewalk along the west side of Unit 4 is not required unless it is providing access to the front door of this unit. b.2 - The sidewalk between Unit 3 and Unit 4 is also not required unless they are providing access to the main entrance to the units. b.3 - The sidewalks along the south and east sides of Unit 3 have been provided as required unfortunately the sidewalks reduce the width of the one way PAAL along the south and east sides of the building. The minimum width for a one way access lane can be 10 feet if it is not a required fire access lane which then must be 20 feet in width. c.1 - The back-up area behind parking spaces 8 and 9 must have a minimum 24 feet clear in the west and north direction of the PAAL to allow for vehicle maneuvering into and out of the vehicle parking spaces. c.2 - The section of the one way PAAL adjacent to Unit 2 has been reduced to 8 feet which is less than the required 10 foot minimum width allowed. Due to site constraints it is possible to request a modification of the Technical standards and Vehicle design criteria. Previous comment 9 / 30: 2-06.4.9.R - A sidewalk four feet in width is required between a building and the vehicular use areas. The sidewalk must be physically separated from the travel lanes by constructing a raised concrete sidewalk. In addition the sidewalk system must connect all building on site and out to the street sidewalk. Placing the pedestrian circulation path in the center of the PAALS is not acceptable. To eliminate the sidewalk would require approval through a board of adjustment variance process. The onsite sidewalk must be connected to the on-street sidewalk location. Demonstrate the location for the connection. 6. This plan is on the fourth review and it is clear that there are limitations that cannot be addressed and will require a separate review and approval process to address the items listed above. It is requested that the applicant meet with the section manager Steve Shields to discuss the plans and options for the TSMR and PDMR process that will be required before the DP is resubmitted for review. 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 |
| 07/30/2019 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DP18-0259 1) Previous comment 1: The pedestrian circulation path needs to be separated from the vehicular use are. While bollards and curbs are provide in some areas, they are not provided in others. There are conflicts between the vehicular use area and pedestrian circulation paths 2) Previous comment 2: Provide Complete the waste stream calculations to show that the yearly volume of waste will be met per week with the proposed number of pick up cans. Reference TSM section 8-01.8.0. Show that the number of Refuse APC's or Cans provide enough volume to match/exceed the weekly lbs of waste that are generated 3) Previous Comment 3. Provide a Motor Vehicle Use Area in accordance with UDC section 7.4. The pedestrian circulation path in the southeast portion of the development reduces the one-way drive and also reduces the required 24' back up area 4) Follow up on previous comment 4. Minimum curb height is 6". Revise detail 5) Previous comment 6. Show the driveway aprons on the plan sheets fully dimensions, not just the detail reference. The reason being that the curb cut width for the driveway apron is greater than shown. The curb cut will need to be enlarged to accept the driveway apron 6) Previous comment 7. Follow up on previous comment 6. In lieu of spot grades, update the standard planting detail to show a 6" depressed area (taking into account side slopes) for water runoff. The 6" of ponding volume is not to include any materials such as much or gravel, but it purely for water runoff volume. Mulch or gravel can be below the 6" of ponding water 7) Follow up on previous comment 8. Sheet 1, Update project info note FROM "NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT" to "BUILDING ADDITIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR UNITS 1,4 AND 4" 8) Sheet 3. Clarify the purpose of Detail 215/5. The full height portion of the detail is crossed out. It is not clear where the transition to the proposed height begins or ends 9) No further plan submittals will be accepted until the project applicant completes an in-person review with all applicable reviewers. Per zoning comments and in-person meeting with Steve Shields, Section Manager, to discuss options for a TSMR and PDMR, is also needed. John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 07/31/2019 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLAN RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE - The reviews have been completed - A resubmittal is required Permit/Activity Number: DP18-0259 Description: E SITE - West Laguna Street, New remodel for Max Stanerson. Project Manager: Loren.Makus@TucsonAz.gov, (520) 837-4927 The fee balance is $0 (zero). Thank you for the payment. To view the review comments: www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, enter Activity Number. (If information isn't shown yet, check back later as data flows to PRO periodically throughout the day.) Name your 5th submittal documents accordingly, for example: 5_Plan_Set. Submit the following items to the PDSD Filedrop: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd. In the Project Description field, please include the Activity Number. 1) Comment Response Letter (listing your response to reviewer's comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set) 3) Any other items requested by review staff Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: Permit Counter/Payments 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/31/2019 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |