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 - DP21-0145
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/17/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/07/2021 | 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: 4-plex ACTIVITY NO: DP21-0145 Address: 3250 N Stone Ave Parcel: 106-03-054B Zoning: R-3 Existing Use: Vacant, previously disturbed land Proposed Use: Multi-Family TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 7, 2021 DUE DATE: July 13, 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 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. Please provide a plan of the entire site for landscape, irrigation and water harvesting plans. 3. Landscape interior borders are required as the proposed use is commercial, multi-family. Provide 10’ landscape borders per UDC Table 7.6.4. 4. Identify trees shown on sheet S2 on landscape plans. 5. Revise Note 7 and replace with “Arizona Department of Water Resource’s Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List”. 6. Revise Parking Tree Requirements to say that 1 tree is required/provided and border trees are within 10’ of parking spaces. 7. The labeling of the street landscape border is confusing, dimension 10’ total of required landscape border with encroachment into R/W. A right of way use permit will be required. 8. Lantana montevidensis is a groundcover, not a shrub. Tecoma stans and Calliandra eriophylla are shrubs, not accents. 9. Provide calculations for 50% vegetative ground coverage for landscape borders, the calculations provided do not match the plant materials in the legend. The plants shown do not provide 50% vegetative coverage in the landscape border. 10. Please provide existing and future rights of way for both streets, as well as sight triangles at entries on landscape plans. 11. Under Landscape Plan Key Notes, it states that the paved area is almost an acre, but the whole site is .22 acres, please correct. 12. A detail for the proposed block wall is needed. 13. Provide irrigation details for equipment. 14. The irrigation plan is confusing, please identify random lines crossing drawing. Show entire site on plans. Trees shown on irrigation plan are not watered? 15. Please identify dot hatch on irrigation plan. 16. Decomposed granite detail should not have compacted d.g. or subgrade to 95%, which would prevent water infiltration. 17. Technical Standard 3.2 requires a Water Harvesting Implementation Plan which consists of a separate sheet with a plan view layout of the site. The format and design of the Implementation Plan shall be consistent with the base plan, for a Development Package reference, DS 2-01. The Implementation Plan shall include all details necessary and appropriate to convey the technical concept of the water harvesting system design and to facilitate proper installation and maintenance of the water harvesting system in compliance with the ordinance and this standard. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/13/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole, MH 9858-71. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 07/14/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Navajo Road Quad Plex Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0145 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 14, 2021 DUE DATE: July 13, 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 June 10, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide an email address for the Project Owner. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0145, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 – Remove the subdivisions from the location map as they are not required. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C – Label the section corners 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 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Provide a general note stating the existing & proposed use along with all applicable Use Specific Standards per UDC Table 4.8-2. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As Stone Ave is listed as an Arterial Street on the COT MS&R map provide a general note stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).” 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. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The proposed 23’ wide PAALs do not meet the requirements of UDC 7.4.6.D, &Figure 7.4.6-A of 24’ wide. A Parking Design Modification (PDMR) may be requested to reduce the PAAL width. The PDMR must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the DP, see UDC Article 7.4.10. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.a A back-up spur must be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. Clearly demonstrate that the required back-up spur is provided at the south end of both PAALs and that it meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. The calculation states “5 PROVIDED” and the plan shows 6. Also, as the required number is 8 a variance will be required. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11, Section 1106.5 Van Spaces for every six of fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be a van-accessible parking space. That said revise the parking calculation to show the 1 van accessible space is required and provided. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The accessible parking space shown on the plan and the detail on sheet 3 do not appear to meet the requirements for a van accessible parking space see ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.1. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – It appears that the accessible parking space sign encroaches into the 2’-6” vehicle overhang. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that a parking vehicle using space #4 will not encroach into the short-term bicycle parking area. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.g Short-term bicycle parking is permitted in vehicular use areas provided the parking area is separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier, demonstrate how this requirement is met on the plan. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrate how the requirement of UDC Article 74.9.B.1.e is met. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Plan Note 11 states “COVERED” but there does not appear to be a cover over the proposed short-term bicycle parking. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J - As Stone Ave is listed as an Arterial Street on the COT MS&R map and the street is not at full width show the future right-of-way line, future curb & sidewalk on the plan and demonstrate how this project meets code to the future right-of-way. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As no building height was provided perimeter yard setbacks cannot be verified. As Stone Ave is listed as an Arterial Street on the COT MS&R map street perimeter yard setbacks for both Stone and Navajo are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1, 21’ or the height of the proposed exterior building wall, greater of the two. Sone’s perimeter yard setback is measured from the back of future curb and Navajo is measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Multifamily development is defined as Any residential development consisting of three or more dwelling units on an integrated site or single lot, see UDC Article 11.3.7.3. Per UDC Article 6.3.3.D a Multifamily development is considered a Nonresidential use for the purposes of determining dimensional standards. That all said 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, Nonresidential Use to a Residential Zone the required perimeter yard is 10’ or ¾ the height of the proposed exterior wall as measured from design grade to the highest point of the wall. Again, has the building height was not provide required perimeter yard setbacks to the south and east property lines cannot be verified. The south 7’-0” perimeter yard setback will require at a minimum a Design Development Option (DDO) to reduce the setback. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the height of the proposed structures within the footprint on the plan. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A the minimum width of a sidewalk is 4’-0” the proposed 3’-0” sidewalk shown along the north side of the building will require a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) to be submitted and approved prior to approval of the DP, see TSM Section 1-01.6.0. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). Provide the required sidewalk from the proposed building to Navajo Rd. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – If gang mailboxes are proposed indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – If applicable indicate location of any signage to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. Provide a note on the DP stating “ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE PERMITS”, If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/19/2021 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Plan shall indicate existing fire hydrant location and distance to the furthest portion of the building as the hose lays not as the crow flys. Will the building have fire sprinklers? I did not see a new fire line on the plumbing plans. If they are going to have fire sprinklers you shall show the fire line. Questions: Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 07/23/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Show water surface contours on the site plan. 2. General note 4 indicates no disturbed area for this development. Revise to indicate correct disturbed areas. 3. Revise the drainage report to correctly identify the soils as C-type soils. 4. Use the correct run-off coefficients for C-type soils. 5. Using the right-of-way for water harvesting requires permission from DTM. Provide copy of communication providing permission from DTM. 6. The drainage report refers to both the Navajo Wash and the Elvado watershed. Check all information in this report to confirm it is all applicable to the proposed site. 7. TSMS shows the discharge at North Stone Avenue of 1950 cfs. Revise the drainage report accordingly. 8. Include the encroachment calculations in the Drainage Report. Appendices C and D are both empty. 9. Show enclosures or screening for the solid waste roll cans. 10. Show proposed fences or walls. Indicate areas of the property where fences or walls should not be constructed. Ensure the walls and fences are addressed in the encroachment analysis calculations. 11. Note that all perimeter walls require drainage openings. 12. Additional comments may be added on the next review. Loren Makus loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/23/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: C. Corrales Fri 7/23/2021 4:23 PM Returned for Corrections DP21-0145 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - Navajo Road Quad-plex. 3250 N STONE AV FEES DUE: $ 709.07 Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW Fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENT If amount doesn't match "Fees Due", check back in a few hours after it is updated. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave this field blank 4- "Continue" 5- In the Pay column - check the boxes 6- "Continue" 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 2nd submittal documents according to this example: 2_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 |