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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP21-0326
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: 4253 E Flower St ACTIVITY NO: DP21-0326 Address: 4253 E Flower St Zoning: R-2 Existing Use: Residential Multi-family Proposed Use: Residential Multi-family TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 3, 2022 DUE DATE: January 3, 2022 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. The parking calculations are different than the civil calculations. Please revise. 2. Please label the existing and future rights of way for Columbus Blvd and Flower St, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 3. Integrate tree planting islands, diamonds, tree grates or other acceptable solution into the parking areas, placing trees along the edge of a parking area or at the ends of parking row does not meet the intent of the UDC. All spaces within 40’ of a tree is only one of the requirements. The intent is to provide as much shade on the asphalt as possible, and the requirement is 1 tree per 4 parking spaces; trees are expected to be placed within the parking area itself to mitigate the heat and glare radiated by the built environment, UDC 7.6.1.A.3. Trees are to be distributed evenly throughout the parking area, UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a., UDC Technical Standards Manual 5-01-.3.2. 4. An irrigation plan and specifications are required per UDC Administration Manual 2-10.4.2.C and Technical Standards Manual Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards. 5. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 6. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. 7. Adherence to the Low Impact Development Standards outlined in Section 5 of the PCRFCD Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention is required and shall work in conjunction with the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting design. https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Flood%20Control/Rules%20and%20Procedures/Stormwater%20Detention-Retention/dssdr-manual-board-version-201511.pdf 8. Grading, hydrology, and landscape plans must be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. UDC 7.6.6.C.2. The landscape, water harvesting, and grading plans must match. 9. Identify the point of drainage off roof areas, amount of flow, and disposition of flow. 10. Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on water harvesting or landscape plans. 11. Indicate basin inlets/outlets on both landscape and water harvesting plans. Provide spot elevations. 12. Retention/detention basins should be designed naturally and organically, whenever practicable. 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 |
| 01/05/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Revise the site utility drawing to include the invert and rim elevations of all of the manholes. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. 2. Indicate which buildings will require a backwater valve. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018 as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 01/12/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. Please provide name and contact information of firm/individual who prepared the geotechnical report. Sheet 3 2. Please check existing shed and fence (key note 2 and 6) called out to remain but these structures are conflicting with Basin 1 and the proposed swale flows into the shed. (comment apply to all sheets) 3. Please show clear space access hatch for the trash enclosure. 4. Please demonstrate direct access to Building 6's primary entrance. Provide all necessary spot grades and slopes. 5. Please clarify dimensions and grading of wedge curbs providing access to the residential lots near the Flower Street entrance and indicate the purpose of these areas. (vehicle access, pedestrian "yard" access, etc.) 6. Please include rockwell location on site plan. Sheet 4 7. Please provide bottom and top elevations, volumes, WSEL, flow rates (Q100 peak) for all basins. 8. Please check proposed swale between Buildings 1 and 2. Proposed flows flow into the existing shed at Basin 1. Please provide downstream FL elevation for swale. 9. Please provide slope for all curb ramps. 10. Please show how surface drainage enter basin #2. (show surface, flow slope, swale, or pipe with FL elevation or invert elevation) 11. Call out high point near Columbus entrance "39.75 P". 12. Call out scupper near Building 9. 13. Provide flowline information for scupper draining into basin (only 0.03' fall) and expand grading detail 1 to show a sufficient portion of the basin. (top and toe) 14. Call out depressed curb & transitions for scupper and FL between Buildings 1 and 2. 15. Please note the purpose of the 1 foot depression around the rock well and add to drainage report discussion. Provide percolation rates to justify exceeding the 9" maximum water harvesting depth. 16. Identify the point of drainage off roof areas and where the flow is being directed. SWPPP Comments: 1. On the Topographic Map please label the following: Boundary of property, existing structures, existing drainage flow direction, areas of soil disturbed and areas that will not be disturbed, and location of all potential pollutant-generating activities, on-site material, waste, stockpile, or equipment storage areas and other supporting activities. 2. Please label all proposed and existing structures. (such as Existing Building #5) 3. Please verify all line types generate properly. (ex. scupper FL to Basin 1) 4. Please perimeter control at the tops and toes for all basins. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Page 4 - Columbus Wash Floodplain - Please provide FEMA Water surface elevations and required finished floor elevations. 2. General Comment- Please provide sizing calculations and erosion protection for the scuppers into the basin to ensure the size of each is sufficient for conveyance below the curb or account for the depth of flow over the curb when considering the finished floor elevations. These values should be the greater of the onsite flows of the flows established in the JE Fuller report. 3. Page 5 - Please include a maintenance discussion and responsibilities for the basins and rock well. 4. Figure 2 - Please provide contours. 5. Figure 3 - topography indicates flow through adjacent properties is towards a new building and not towards the read as indicated on Figure 2. Please obtain available PAG topo to provide more accurate mapping and demonstrate that the new building is not impacted by sheet flow and does not result in backing up of water on the adjacent lot(s). 6. Figure 4- Flow arrow on properties adjacent to Columbus do not match flow arrow on Figure please. Please revise with respect to other comments and ensure consistency between exhibits. Review and Comments provided by third party engineer reviewers under contract with the City of Tucson. For Questions or Concerns contact: Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/17/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approv-Cond | View the following in the "Documents" section of PRO: TEP approval letter 01.17.22, TEP facility map 01.17.22, and TEP review page 5 mark up 01.17.22. |
| 01/21/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Email from: David.Stiffey@tucsonAz.gov To: CDRC Fri 1/14/2022 2:32 PM DP21-0326 1. Please correct the Sight Visibility Triangles. The Near side length should be 185 Ft. Your Far side SVT’s are correct. David Stiffey City of Tucson Dept.of Transportation & Mobility |
| 01/21/2022 | JVINCEN1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/14/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits to: lisa bowers Mon 2/14/2022 10:07 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0326 DESCRIPTION: Tentative Plat - 4253 East Flower Street. Fee Balance: $0 (zero) YOUR NEXT STEPS 1. 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 to see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL and include: 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to 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 SECOND submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter FILEDROP for your Resubmittal https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - Select "Existing Application" - In the "Permit Number" field, enter the number and, if applicable, any notes for our staff - Select "PLANS" for documents for quicker downloading of your documents on our end Sharon Beasley, Building Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov |
| 12/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 12/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 12/28/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Tentative Plat Package for 4253 E Flower Street Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0326 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 28, 2021 DUE DATE: January 3, 2022 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 November 28, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.C – List the number of proposed lots within the title block. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0326, 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.8 - For development package documents provide: 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8 - Under General Note 17 “RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION” the “ACTUAL = 38/2.53” is not correct. As rounding up creates a non-conforming site the actual allowed density for this site is 37. 38 units will require at a minimum a Board of Adjustment or possibly a rezoning. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – As you are proposing individual parcels demonstrate that each parcel does not exceed the allowed lot coverage. 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. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – Provide approximate distances and measurements for all proposed lots. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.B - Identify each lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.B – Under General Note 17 “LOT SIZE” “ACTURAL MINIMUM” you list “5,796 SF”, 5,796 is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-2.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 ZONES, R-2 Zone, the density allowed is 15 units per acre which would require 2,904 SF for each unit. For a parcel with 2 units the minimum lot size is 5,808 SF and a parcel with 4 units is 11,616 SF. Clearly show that each parcel meets the minimum lot size for the number of units proposed. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E – It appears that approximately 19’ was split off of the 9 parcels that front on Columbus to be used for this project. None of the land splits appear to have been processed through PDSD, and would not have been approved as they have created numerous non-conforming R-2 parcels. To utilize these substandard parcels as part of this development the eight parcels that appear to remain as SFR’s will need to show all structures on each parcel and that all parcels meet the development standards for a single-family residence in the R-2 Zone, i.e. setbacks to all structures, lot coverage. This needs to be included in the tentative plat. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 – As Columbus is not at full width show the future SVT’s on the plan bases on the street cross section provided in the COT MS&R plan. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The proposed short-term bicycle parking location does not meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.d. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J - As Columbus is not at full width show the future right-of-way line, curb and sidewalk on the plan and demonstrate that the site meets the applicable development standards to the future ROW. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As you are proposing numerous parcels and vehicle & pedestrian access will be crossing these parcel lines some type of access easement or agreement will need to be recorded. Clarify what type of access will be used and provide the recordation information on the plan. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The perimeter yard setbacks shown under General Note 17 are not correct. As this site borders on a street designated on the COT MS&R Map the street perimeter yard setbacks are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1. The setback to Columbus is 21’ or the Height of the exterior wall, greater of the two, measured to the back of future curb, setback to Flower is 21’ or the Height of the exterior wall, greater of the two, measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The perimeter yard setbacks shown under General Note 17 are not correct. As you are proposing buildings that exceed 13’-4” the required setback is based on ¾ the height of the building exterior wall. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As you are proposing numerous parcels demonstrate the all buildings, existing and proposed meet perimeter yard setbacks to the propose parcel lines. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Ensure that all setbacks shown on sheet 3 meet the required setbacks. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. To resubmit your plans for additional review, please visit: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 12/29/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Email from: Howard Dutt To: CDRC Tue 12/28/2021 11:19 AM 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) 631-2030 |
| 12/31/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | (The ATTACHED PDF mentioned below can be viewed in the "Documents" section of PRO: "Pima Co Addressing review comments, first submittal") Email from: <Addressing@pima.gov> To: CDRC Tue 12/28/2021 12:36 PM Tentative Plat - 4253 East Flower St, DP21-0326 is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman, Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 724-7570 |