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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/30/2019 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/23/2019 | 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. |
| 09/25/2019 | PAUL CAMARENA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Paul Camarena PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Multi-family Development - Convert Storage Area to 4th Unit Development Package (4th Review) 231 W. Laguna Street DP18-0259 - R-3 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 12, 2019 DUE DATE: September 24, 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. Follow up to pervious comment: This comment was not addressed correctly. Provide the section, township and range information under the vicinity map. Label all section corners and provide a north arrow on vicinity map. Show subject property approximately centered within one square mile. Label all major streets and regional watercourses within the square. 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. 3. Follow up to pervious comment: This comment is still applicable 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. Follow up to pervious comment: This comment was not addressed correctly. Provide as a note the calculation for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. Detail for short term parking facilities does not match what is being proposed. Revise detail to match. As noted before short term facilities must be available at all time. 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. 5. Follow up to pervious comment: This comment was not addressed correctly. Vehicle parking spaces 1 - 5 must also be dimensioned as 10 feet. Vehicle parking space #9 must be designed so that it is 10 feet wide Per UDC section 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. 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.2 - Vehicle parking spaces 1 - 5 must also be dimensioned as 10 feet for the same reason as space #8. 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.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. Follow up to pervious comment: This comment was not addressed correctly. A 4 ft wide sidewalk is required between a building and the vehicular use area for unit 2. 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. Comment: It would beneficial to set up a meeting, with me to address the remaining comments. Email me with a date and time that would benefit you. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Paul Camarena at (520) 837-4082 or by email Paul.Camarena@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 09/30/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The rim elevation of the next upstream manhole, 9444-18 appears as if it may be higher than or less than 12" below the first floor elevation of the existing buildings. Verify the first floor elevations and the rim elevation of manhole 9444-18 to determine if a backwater valve is required in the building sewer. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012 |
| 10/02/2019 | 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 area. For example adjacent to and surrounding the central parking spaces, spaces #6 and #10, there is no separation from the pedestrian path on the north side of Unit 2 and the south side of Unit 1 2) Previous comment 4 and Previous comment 8. It is not clear where or how detail 215 on sheet 4 will be used. Suggest changing to PAG standard detail 209 for vertical curb 3) Previous submittal showed a pedestrian circulation path on the east side of unit 2. Revise plans to show a pedestrian circulation path on the east side of unit 2. Path must be physically separated from the vehicle drive aisle. 4) Previous comment 5. Show the driveway aprons on the plan sheets fully dimensioned, not just a 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 new driveway apron John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 10/03/2019 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLAN RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE - A resubmittal is required Permit/Activity Number:j DP18-0259 Project 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). To view the review comments: www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, enter Activity Number. (If information isn't shown yet, check back later as data uploads to PRO periodically.) 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 the reviewer's comments and the changes that were made) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff 4) Name your 6th submittal documents accordingly, for example: 6_Plan_Set 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2019 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |