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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP20-0255
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/02/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Correct the manhole data. The next upstream manhole is 8960-25B; the next downstream manhole is 8960-24B. The manhole rim elevations shown on the drawing are about 95-feet too low for the site. 2. Verify the FFE for the existing buildings. 3. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson (i.e. don't leave it up to a contractor to determine the need for a backwater valve). . Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018. |
| 02/02/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Development Services Department Zoning Review PROJECT: 1142 N Richey Blvd Development Package (1st Review) DP20-0255 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 2, 2021 DUE DATE: February 8, 2021 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. 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). 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 January 7, 2022. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.2.4 – Concurrent Reviews, as this development package is for site related reviews only, not building code, remove all references to building code from the plan. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner. 3. 2-06.4.2.D – Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) within the title block. 4. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map shall be drawn at a minimum scale of three-inch equals one mile. 5. 2-06.4.2.C - Section corners, and the scale will be labeled on the location map. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 6. 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Revise SITE NOTES/ZONING/LANDUSE NOTE 3 TO INCLUDE the existing use and the Use Specific Standards that apply to multifamily use in the R-3 zone, see UDC TABLE 4.8-2: PERMITTED USES - URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 7. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – The lot coverage calculation does not appear to be correct and is very confusing. Review UDC Article 6.4.3.B and revise the lot coverage so that is clear. Also, under LOT COVERAGE you list the “NEW COVERAGE ALLOWED” as 25% which is not correct and should be 70%. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 8. 2-06.4.9.F – Provide the existing zoning classifications for the property west of Richey Blvd with the zoning boundaries clearly defined. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC TABLE 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS, the minimum aisle width for a PAAL that provides access to 90-degree parking is 24’-0”. The proposed 20’-0” PAAL will require a Board of Adjustment for Variance. This variance will need to be approved prior to approval of this DP. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension the back-up spur shown at the south end of the vehicle parking area, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. Ensure that you show the required 3’-0” to the property line. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Multifamily Dwellings - 0-70 units/acre, a 1-bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Based on 1.5 per 1 bedroom the required number of vehicle parking spaces is 19. 12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calc states that there are two (2) accessible spaces provided but the plans only show one (1) 13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – TYP. HANDICAPPED VAN PARKING DETAILS shows a standard vehicle parking space with an 8’-0” Space Width. Per UDC TABLE 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS the minimum width of a standard vehicle parking space is 8’-6” 14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – TYP. HANDICAPPED VAN PARKING DETAILS appears to show the required handicapped signage encroaching into the 2’-6” vehicle overhang. Clearly show that the signage does not encroach into the 2’-6” overhang. 15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. 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. That said the northwest vehicle parking space located near the 30” screen wall must be 10’-0”. 16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Under the “PARKING TABULATIONS:” it appears that you have included the number of required short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces. Why is this not provided under the “BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS”? 17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The “BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS” is confusing. There appears to some of the bicycle parking calculation under the “PARKING TABULATIONS:” and some under the “BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS”. Also, under the “BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS” you state “BASED ON (1) BEDROOMS PER UNIT:” but you also have a two (2) bedroom unit. Revise the bicycle parking calculation to clear show the number of required and provided short- & long-term bicycle parking spaces. 18. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The long-term bicycle parking shown under the “BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS” is not correct and should be based on 0.5 spaces per bedroom, Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. 19. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The “BICYCLE PARKING SPACE” detail does not match what is shown on the plan. The detail shows the racks near a vehicle parking space when the plan shows adjacent to a sidewalk. The detail also references “DS # 2-090” which hasn’t been used since 2011. Also, show how the sort-term meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d & .e, 7.4.9.B.2.a, .b, .f, h, 7.4.9.C.2.a, .d. Zoning acknowledges that the long-term bicycle parking will be provided in each unit. 20. 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2, R-3 Zone, the required perimeter yard setback for interior property lines is 10’-0” or ¾ the Height of the proposed exterior building wall, great of the two dimension applies. That said based on a wall height of 20’-5 ¾” or 20’-6” the required perimeter yard setback to the east and south property line is 15’-5”, proposed to the east property line is 4’-0” and to the south is 10-0”. Depending on how comments 9 & 11 are address will determine what process is needed to reduce perimeter yard setbacks. If a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required for PAAL width or number of vehicle parking spaces the perimeter yard setbacks can be included in the Variance. If you somehow redesign the site to meet the PAAL width and vehicle parking space requirements than a Design Development Option (DDO) can be used to reduce perimeter yard setbacks. Zoning recommends that you contact Building Code to ensure that you are not going to have issues with setbacks for building code, if your setback is less than 10’ fire rating may be required. 21. 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the height of each structure within the footprint of the building(s), this should be listed in feet not by story. 22. 2-06.4.9.R – Provide width dimension for all existing and proposed sidewalks on the plan. As this is full code for the entire site the sidewalk widths, existing and proposed, must meet TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A 23. 2-06.4.9.V – if a gang mailbox is proposed indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin, (520) 837-4966 or Elisa.Hamblin @tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 02/08/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | (The ATTACHED PDF mentioned below can be viewed online: www.TucsonAz.gov/Pro. See the Documents section.) 02/05/21 DP20-0255, new construction, 1138 N RICHEY BL, 1st submittal is being Returned for Corrections. The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments. Robin Freiman, Addressing Official, (520) 724-7570 |
| 02/17/2021 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL 4.1???Identification and Descriptive Data 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 Development Package 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. Add case number and DP20-0255 on each sheet. 1. Canopy Trees in Vehicular Use Areas a. General Standards Within a vehicular use area , one canopy tree is required for each four motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. (1) The canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area . Every parking space must be located within 40 feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). (2) Fifty percent of the trees required for landscape borders located within ten feet of the paved portion(s) of a vehicular use area may be counted towards both the minimum parking lotcanopy tree standard and the landscape border canopy tree standard. (3) An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree . Landscape Borders Minimum Width Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line . Located on Site Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site , except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacentright-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets . Portions of the street landscape buffer are not 10’ wide. Note: Street landscape buffer must extend the entire length of property excluding ingress and egress, Ensure that Zoning comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. |
| 02/24/2021 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/08/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1.The minimum two-way aisle width for a PAAL accessing 90-degree parking is 24' per UDC table 7.4.6-1. 2. Please clarify parking space widths, plan and standard parking spaces detail show 8.5' widths and typ handicapped van parking detail shows min 8'. Per UDC table 7.4.6-1 the minimum width of a standard parking space is 8'-6". 3. The northern parking space adjacent to the 30" CMU screening wall needs to be 10' per UDC article 7.4.6.D.2.b. 4. Show dimensions/detail for group mailbox to ensure no encroachment into pedestrian circulation path. 5. Front of the property is within COT Flood Hazard Area. Floodplain Use Permit required, See instructions below for application steps: Project: (DP20-0255) Address: (1138 N RICHEY BL) This project is within a mapped flood hazard area and requires a Floodplain Use Permit (FUP.) Please start a new FUP at our permit application web page: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp. Instructions: 1. Is this for a new or existing activity application? - Please select New Application. 2. Submission Type - Select Floodplain Use Permit. 3. Project Name - Enter a name for your project. 4. Select Street Name from the list. You can type the first two letters or number to get closer to your choice in the list. Then select the rest of the address in the boxes provided. 5. Type of Permit - Select Commercial or Residential (Residential is for work on single family residences and duplexes.) 6. Complete the Applicant Info. (Note APA# is for applicants with an advance payment account. Leave blank is you do not have an APA account. 7. Complete the Contractor, Owner and Architect/Engineer sections as applicable. 8. Supporting Documentation Upload - Provide a complete cost estimate for the project. You may also provide additional documents you think will be helpful. 9. Sign the application and submit. 10. You will be given an activity number for your submittal. Please copy and send this number back to us so we can continue the review. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/09/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: March 9, 2021 Returned for Corrections PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0255 DESCRIPTION: SITE/GRADING - New Construction, Triplex, 1138 N. Richey Blvd. FEES DUE: $ 1,697.10 Please pay the total fees (or at a minimum, the REVIEW Fees). A payment is required before your resubmittal. ONLINE PAYMENT https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees If information is not available or amount isn't correct, check back in a few hours after data is updated. (Visa, MC, Discover, American Express, or pay from bank account) 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter your Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave blank 4- Click the blue tab: Continue 5- Under the Pay column, check the boxes 6- Click Continue RESUBMITTAL Submit the following documents to: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then the permit number) 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff - Title the documents for your 2nd submittal starting with the submittal number, for example: 2_Plan_Set SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and your submitted documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab - Reviews - click on Review Details - Documents - click on View to the right of each document For all NEW development package submittals on the new Filedrop page, select the box: "SITE REVIEW...". Thank you. City of Tucson Attn: Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist Planning and Development Services email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov |