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 - DP21-0002
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/13/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/18/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 01/18/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | |
| 01/18/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 01/18/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 01/22/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | 01/22/21 No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks and Recreation (520) 837-8040 |
| 02/01/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields PROJECT: Casita Village on Catalina Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0002 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 1, 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. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0002, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 - Provide the rezoning case number, C9-20-02, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also, as a general note provide the case number and any conditions of approval. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – General Site Note 21 the existing use is listed as “GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES” but should be listed as RESIDENTIAL. Also, the proposed use should also list the applicable Use Specific Standards as listed in UDC Table 4.8-2, PERMITTED USES - URBAN RESIDENTIAL, Residential Land Use Group With Land Use Class/Type: Multifamily Development for the R-2 zone. You also list a proposed use of “RETAIL/GENERAL MERCHANDISE” as a proposed use. “RETAIL/GENERAL MERCHANDISE” is not an allowed use in the R-2 Zone. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - General Site Note 12 states “THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY OVERLAY ZONES AS DEFINED BY TUCSON UDC ARTICLE 5” OVERLAY ZONES”. This site boards on Catalina Hwy which is designated as a Major Street and Route and also a Scenic Corridor Zone. Provide a general note stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.3 SCENIC CORRIDO ZONE (SCZ) & UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).” 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Clearly show the required view corridors on the plan along with a calculation. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan that meets the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.3. Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2, R-2 zone the maximum lot coverage is 75%. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A – As this site is made up of two (2) parcels, 114-52-008G & 114-51-1790, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with the next submittal. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – If applicable all existing easements shall be shown on the plan along with the recordation information. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. Provide the zoning for the parcel on the southeast side of Catalina Hwy. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension all back-up spurs shown on the plans, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen , or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said sheet 6 southwest corner there is a fence called out under Site Keynote 26 that runs parallel to the access lane, provide a setback dimension from the access lane to this fence. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(1) and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: An open structure , such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang. Clearly show the required one (1) foot setback for all proposed covered parking canopies. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The number of required Handicap spaces shown under the UDC Parking Calculation is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Table 1106.1 when 280 vehicle parking spaces are provided the number of required handicapped spaces is 7. Also, per 2018 IBC Section 1106.5 Van spaces, for every 6 or fraction of six accessible parking spaces at least one shall be a van-accessible space. Provide the number of required van-accessible space, two (2), within the parking calculation. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Detail “J” sheet 30 does not address the requirements for a van-accessible space. Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of ICC A117.1, Section 502.2. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Detail “J” sheet 30 calls out “INSTALL CONCRETE WHEEL STOP PER DETAIL SHEET . SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS.” There are no wheel stops shown on the plans. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide the number of short – and long – term bicycle spaces provided within the calculation. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Site Keynote 14 calls out “ INSTALL BICYCLE PARKING , SEE LANDSACPE PLAN FOR DETAILS.” There are not bicycle parking details on the landscape plans and Site Keynote could not be found on the Paving and grading sheets. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a short – term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1, .2 & 7.4.9.C are met. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a long – term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1, .2 & 7.4.9.D are met. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – If applicable show all proposed easements on the plan along with the recordation information. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Provide street perimeter yard setback dimensions for the proposed structures along Catalina Hwy. These perimeter yard setbacks must meet UDC Article 5.3.5.A. 23. COMMENT: 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-2 zone, Nonresidential Use to a Residential Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 10 or ¾ the Height of the proposed exterior building wall, greater of the two dimensions. Based on a height of 14’-0” as shown on sheet 4 the required perimeter yard setbacks for all property lines except along Catalina Hwy. is 10’-6”. Clearly demonstrate that all proposed structures along the perimeter meet this setback. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Detail 1 sheet 61 shows a site all that exceeds 6’-0”. It is not clear where this wall will be located on site. If it is along the perimeter and does not meet perimeter yard setback a Design Development Option (DDO) for wall height will be required. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – There is a ramada called out on the landscape plans which is not called out on the site plan. Label is ramada and provided the square footage on the site plan. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Detail “J” sheet 30 shows accessible parking space signage located within the sidewalk area. Cleary demonstrate on the plan that this signage does not encroach into the required sidewalk width of 4’-0” see TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A. 27. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – The only sidewalk width dimensions provided are associated with PAALs or access lanes, provide sidewalk widths for all other sidewalks. 28. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – there are now accessible ramps show for the proposed accessible parking spaces. Clearly demonstrate how access from the accessible parking spaces to the associated sidewalks is provided. 29. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 30. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Clearly show the proposed gang mailboxes on the plan. 31. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – Provide a general note on the plan stating “ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE PERMIT”. 32. COMMENT: Provide a density calculation on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Elisa Hamblin, (520) 837-4966 or Elisa.Hamblin @tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 02/02/2021 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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 DP21-0002 on each sheet. Ensure that Zoning comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. |
| 02/03/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. The local amendment to Section 714.1, IPC 2018 reads, "Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover in the sewer, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the same back water valve." Note that the section refers to the upstream manhole, not an upstream cleanout. Revise the private sewer drawings as needed to comply with the amended code section. a. The following buildings do not require the installation of a backwater valve: 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 69, 70, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 119, 120, and 121. b. The following additional building do require the installation of a backwater valve: 8, 29, 30, 31, 47, 60, 61, 67, 99, 104, 114, and 115. 3. Coordinate the building numbers in the private sewer plans with those in the site plan. Assuming the site plan numbering is correct, buildings 41, 42, and 43 are mis-numbered on the private sewer plans (e.g. there are also two buildings labeled 43). |
| 02/04/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide the conditions of rezoning on the plan. Additional comments may apply once the conditions are provided. In addition to graphically demonstrating compliance, it is helpful to have a discussion letter explaining how each condition has been completed. 2. The site survey indicates the property is unsubdivided. The parcels along Catalina Highway are part of the Indian Hills subdivision, Book 8 Page 43. This must be reflected on all sheets. 3. Rezoning condition 9 require retention and detention at the critical basin level. Please revise the drainage report and development package to be consistent with this condition. 4. On sheet 10, review the basin data. It appears the 100-yr WSEL for Basins S and W are below the bottom elevation. 5. Provide barriers at the basin entrances to prevent unauthorized vehicle access to the basins. 6. Clearly indicate the location and extent of the outlet structures in the plan view and details. 7. Clearly delineate the drainage areas contributing to each basin and show drainage patterns. 8. Provide infiltration data to demonstrate the basins will infiltrate within 24 hours. 9. Ensure the watershed exhibits are clear and accurate. The watershed areas on the existing watershed exhibit don't total the site area. Please use line weights and symbols to increase legibility of the exhibits. 10. A complete SWPP is required. Provide a SWPPP site map showing required BMPs. The SWPPP must be consistent with the most recent construction general permit. 11. Per City Code Sec. 25-39 the maximum driveway width at the property line is 30 feet. Revise the site plan or provide permission from Director of DTM for a wider driveway. 12. Show positive drainage for each building. For example, clarify the grades adjacent to Building 50 on Sheet 6. Confirm for all buildings. 13. Where parking spaces are adjacent to sidewalks, provide parking blocks or additional sidewalk to provide 2.5 feet of vehicle overhang and 4 feet of clear sidewalk. Reference details C and D on sheet 29. (UDC 7.4.6.H.1.a) 14. The landscape plans label Eaglefeather Road and Morrill Way as public. Both are private streets. Please correct for consistency. 15. The NPPO plan shows a native plant nursery on an adjacent property and the grading and drainage plans show basins on adjacent properties. Provide recorded easements for offsite drainage solutions and for temporary use for the plant nursery. LOREN MAKUS, EIT loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/24/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Needs Review | 02/24/21 This project still has an open balance of $288. I can place the project into review after the invoice is paid. Nicholas Jordan, Addressing Specialist |
| 02/24/2021 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | |
| 02/24/2021 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | The plan requires change. Add curb and 6 foot sidewalk along the frontage of property on Catalina Hwy and ensure connectivty to sidewalk to the south. |
| 03/01/2021 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | Neighborhoods that exceed 30 homes with one access route shall have the houses sprinklered. Fire sprinklers will be required in these homes and shall be reflected on the plans. Dead end roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a turn around compliant with Appendix D Table D103.4 of the 2018 IFC. Turn arounds shall be reflected on the drawings If you have any questions please call or email me. Jennifer.Peel-Davis@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 03/03/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: March 3, 2021 Returned for Corrections PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP21-0002 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading/Floodplain - Casita Village on Catalina, 9125 E CATALINA HY FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. 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..." for quicker processing. Thank you. City of Tucson Attn: Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist Planning and Development Services email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov |
| 03/03/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | REVIEW | Approved | 03/03/21 The Transit Services Division has no comments. Thank you, Christopher Blue Transit Services Coordinator | Transit Services Division Department of Transportation & Mobility C: 520.260.9558 |