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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP20-0255
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/25/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/21/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The existing buildings still have an FFE that is over 93-feet lower than the proposed new building on sheets DP-1, LS-1, and G-1. [Initial comment: Verify the FFE for the existing buildings.] |
| 07/22/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Approved | Email from: <Addressing@pima.gov> To: CDRC Wed 7/21/2021 12:31 PM New Construction, DP20-0255 , 2nd submittal review is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Thank you, Robin Freiman, Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 07/23/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Development Services Department Zoning Review PROJECT: 1142 N Richey Blvd Development Package (2nd Review) DP20-0255 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 23, 2021 DUE DATE: July 22, 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. 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 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 1. The lot coverage calculation should show the total building area and vehicle use area divided by the lot size for a percentage of lot coverage. Remove the 25% reference from the lot coverage as it is not applicable. The 25% mentioned during the presubmittal is in reference to an expansion calculation. 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. 2. The Board of Adjustment for Variance will need to be applied for and approved prior to approval of this DP. If approved provide the Board of Adjustment case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the case number, date of approve, what was modified and if applicable any conditions of approve. Board of Adjustment application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes/Zoning_Administration_Application_BA_fillable.pdf. Contact Mark Castor at Mark.Castro@tucsonaz.gov. for any question. 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. 3. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number. Revise the vehicle parking space calculation to show 20 space required, 14 space provided. The Board of Adjustment for Variance will need to be applied for and approved prior to approval of this DP. 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. 4. This comment was not addressed correctly, the number of accessible spaces provided shows 1 and the plan shows 1. 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) 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. The bicycle parking calculation shall provide the required and provided number of short- and long-term bicycles space, i.e. 2 short-term required and based on 7 racks 14 short-term provided, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d. The long-term required should be 7, long-term provided is unknown. Remove the reference to “STANDARD BICYCLE SPACES” as the code does not reference this. 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. 6. This comment was not addressed. UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.f, h were not addressed. Review the code articles and UDC Figure 7.4.9-C and provide a detail for the short-term bicycle parking that meets code. Also clarify where the long-term bicycle parking is located, Zoning recommends that you provide a note in the calculation that states “LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED IN EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT”. 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 short-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. 7. The Board of Adjustment for Variance will need to be applied for and approved prior to approval of this DP. 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 ZONES, 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, greater 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. 8. This comment was not fully addressed, provide the heights of the existing structures within the footprint. 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. 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 |
| 07/28/2021 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, PLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: Richey Residential ACTIVITY NO: DP20-0255 Address: 1138 N Richey Blvd Parcel: 122-18-229B Zoning: R-3 Existing Use: MFR Proposed Use: MFR TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 28, 2021 DUE DATE: July 22, 2021 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants and water harvesting. 1. UDC 2-10.4.1 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. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 2. Tree species selection and placement do not meet the intent of the UDC 7.6.1. PURPOSE. 3. The plant palette should reflect and be appropriate for the site and specific use. Using the same plant palette for every project isn’t appropriate or desirable. Vitex agnus-castus is a deciduous shrub that grows to be eight to 20 feet tall and six to 20 feet wide. 4. Plant legend doesn’t include all the symbols used on plans. 5. Please resolve graphic conflicts on all sheets for maximum readability. 6. A 10’ landscape border that includes plants is required along the east boundary per UDC Table 7.6.4-1 or a Design Development Option approval must be pursued. Landscape borders on the north do not have the required number of trees. The street landscape borders do not have the required 50% vegetative cover. Please provide calculations for all borders showing required quantities and coverage. 7. Include parking area calculations for required trees, 2-10-4.2.A.2.c. Ensure that trees in vehicular use areas are planted within and adjacent to parking so that they afford the greatest amount of shade in paved areas, UDC Technical Standards Manual 5-01-.3.2 and UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a. 8. The following apply to all landscape borders, one canopy tree is required for every 33 linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof, excluding vehicular ingress or egress points. Please show all calculations for trees/vegetation cover for all borders. Administrative Manual 2-10.4.2.2. Calculations a. Square footage of the site; b. Square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation; c. Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees; d. A shadow pattern and calculation are required in certain cases (see Section 7.6.4.B, Vehicular Use Area, of the UDC). Provide these, if applicable; e. Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas; f. Length and width of landscape borders and landscape transition borders and number of canopy trees per length; and, g. Square footage of all landscaped borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage, when applicable. 9. Please label the existing and future rights of way for both Valencia Rd and Old Vail Rd, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a . 10. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4. 11. A Commerical Water Harvesting plan is required. 12. An Irrigation plan is required. 13. Interior Border “B”, “D” & “C” and Street Border “A” is unclear as to the different designations. Please explain or remove. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package YOUR NEXT STEPS: Submit documents to the Filedrop https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp Select "Existing Application" 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires changes comments) 2) Plan Set (or individual sheets) 3) Any other items requested by review staff If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/04/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See previous comment 1 - The minimum two-way aisle width for a PAAL accessing 90-degree parking is 24' per UDC table 7.4.6-1. A variance will need to be approved prior to approval of this DP. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/05/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Rene Flores Cc: Rene Flores Thu 8/5/2021 8:57 AM Returned for Corrections: DP20-0255 DESCRIPTION: SITE/GRADING - New Construction, Units 1,2,3, and 4. 1142 N RICHEY BL FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. INCLUDE IN YOUR RESUBMITTAL 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 Please title your 3rd submittal documents according to this example: 3_Comment Response Letter, 07.01.21 FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then enter permit number) SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and 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 and you will see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email for Development Pkgs: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (disregard the email response that will be sent automatically) Email for Building Permits: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov |