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 - DP21-0361
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/20/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. The location map needs more detail. Please revise per AM 2-06.4.4 including an appropriate scale called out (min 3" = 1 mile). 2. Please provide typical detail of accessible parking sign, typical handicap symbol, dimensions of accessible parking, and label if van accessible. 3. Site plan shows 2 bicycle parking spaces. Please update Parking Tabulation regarding bicycle parking. 4. Please add all abbreviation to Abbreviation list (example: "P" for Pavement elevation?, "FL" for Flow Line, VG, WHIA, CO). Sheet 2 5. Please add existing electric pole to legend. 6. Paving Notes: There are (2) #13 note. Please review and update paving notes on Site Plan accordingly. 7. Please provide Unit/building numbers for reference. Sheet 3 8. General and Restrictive Note #8: Please provide area in both SF and acres. Since the disturbed area is more than 1 acre. A SWPPP will be required prior to issuance of the grading permit. 9. Please reference the soil report and provide contact information of the soil engineer who prepare the soil report (sub-grade compaction percentage). 10. Paving and Grading Notes #8: Please check spelling "CONTRACTOR". Sheet 4 11. Basin 1A: Elevation FL=2533.85. Please clarify this elevation is FG and not FL. 12. For Lot with FF=34.24 (middle lots, lower right, near callout for detail K): Please revise SW and P elevation. Both have elevation =2533.64. 13. Please provide elevation, volume, flow rate, WSEL for both WHIA basins. Southwest basin is missing the top of basin and FL linework. 14. Please check slopes at 1.75% and 1.7% for southern lots (the back of these lots has surface drainage flow parallel with E. Bellevue St.). The slopes are shallower than shown on plan. 15. Please add additional detail to show how match existing works at property line (typ Section A, B & C). Add typical slopes to all details. 16. Please provide design information or a standard detail for the driveways. Include how the driveway connects to the curb, any curb depressions, explain how larger (ex. 16%) driveway slopes impact the 2% max sidewalk cross-slope, and show dimensions of curb transitions. 17. Please provide larger contrast between existing and proposed contours on all sheets to match legend. Sheet 5 18. Please revise sewer invert elevations at CO#2, CO#3, CO#4, CO#5. The invert elevations are shown in 2600 while the rim elevations are shown in 2500. 19. Please check water invert =2530.60 and overlapping text (southeast corner at 45-degree bend). It looks like this is the High Point invert elevation compared to other invert elevations. 20. Please check sewer slope between existing 8" sewer main and CO#6. It looks like the slope is 2.2%, not 1.1% as shown. 21. Please label the sewer line that connects to Rook Ave main line directly north of the south entrance. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Page 2 - Section 3.0 states 35% impervious area for the project which is less than the 45.5% shown just for buildings and parking/drive areas. This section is stated as being for offsite flows, which also appear to have a much higher percentage imperviousness. Also note section 4.2 states a much higher value. Please increase the total imperviousness stated. 2. Section 4.3 - Average slope states is less than previously stated, please revise as necessary for consistency. 3. Please check development plan to verify design weir lengths. Plans appears to show only 1 weir location for Basin 1-c with two steps. Please also explain how the weir functions if set below the curb elevation. 4. Page 8 - Note development plans do not show riprap at each basin pipe outlet, nor does it show scuppers within the project which presumably are intended to be located near the site entrance/exist to convey flows into the basins. 5. Page 10 - A perimeter berm is mentioned though not shown on the plans or discussed elsewhere in the report. Please provide additional information related to this berm if it is required or remove if it is not intended. 6. Page 10 - Offsite drainage from the Tucson Woman's Center Parking lot is described as being conveyed along the northern property line. Topographic data on Exhibit 2 indicates flows would be directed into the detention basin. Please reviews and incorporate area into basin calcs if necessary. 7. Exhibit 2 - Please show pre and post developed flows at property boundaries. 8. Appendix B - Basin calculations appear to be independent of each other though are connected. Please analyze the basins in series to demonstrate they function as intended and one basin does not cause a backwater effect to another. 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 |
| 01/26/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/28/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Rook Bellevue Homes – Multi-Family – R-3 Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0361 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 28, 2022 DUE DATE: February 02, 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 December 9, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.A – Sheets 6 – 8 are missing information within the title block. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0361, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map shall be drawn at a minimum scale of three-inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.A – Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Provide a general note that identifies the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – Provide floor area for each building; 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide a lot coverage calculation that shows a break down of the total building area, & vehicle use area along the allowed lot coverage and proposed 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. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of two (2) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Multifamily Dwellings - 0-70 units/acre, the required number of vehicle parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. State the number of bedrooms in each within the vehicle parking space calculation. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation states that there are 41 space provided but only 22 shown on the plan. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.B Required motor vehicle parking must be located on-site. This includes the visitor parking. Remove the reference to “(VIISITOR PARKING: ASSUMES ON-STREET PARKING AVAILABLE0” from the vehicle parking calculation, and provide all required vehicle parking on site. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a detail for the required accessible signage. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1106.5 a van accessible parking space shall be provided for every six of fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one will be van accessible. This van accessible space shall meet the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Multifamily Dwellings and Group Dwelling, short- & long-term bicycle parking is required. Provide a short- & long-term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Remove the reference to “(SINGLE FAMILY RESEIDNETIAL)” from the bicycle parking calculation as this site does not qualify as single family residential, see UDC Article 11.3.7 definitions of single-family & multi-family. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the short- & long-term bicycle parking that demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B, .C & .D are met. Detail 1 sheet 3 does not meet these requirements. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.a Within established areas , the minimum required front street perimeter yard is 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 90 feet. Based on the 25’ height provided under “SITE INFORMATION” the requirement front street perimeter yard setback is 37’-6”, proposes front street perimeter yard setback is 20.0’. A Design Development Option (DDO) must be submitted and approved to reduce the required setback, DDO application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/forms/DDO_for_Setback_and_Height_UDC_8.11.20.pdf. A DDO is a separate submittal from the building plan and shall be submitted at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd-filedrop, using the Submission Type “Zoning Administration”. If you have questions about the DDO application or process please contact Mark Castro at Mark.Castro@tucsonaz.gov. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 6.3.3.C a multi-family development is considered non-residential for the purpose of applying dimensional standards. 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 to the north and east property line is 10’ or ¾ (H), Height of the proposed exterior building wall. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on a measurement from design grade to the highest point of the exterior wall UDC Article 6.4.5.B & Figure 6.4.5-A. Based on the 25’ height provided under “SITE INFORMATION” the requirement perimeter yard setback to the north & east property line is 18’-9”, proposed setback to the north property line is 17.1’ and to the east is 16.7”. A Design Development Option (DDO) must be submitted and approved to reduce the required setback. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage, height, and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As vehicles are allowed to over-hang the 5’-0” sidewalk along the west side of the vehicle parking area, demonstrate that the 2’-6” over-hang requirement, shown under UDC Article 7.4.6.h.3 does not reduce the sidewalk width to less than 4’-0”, see TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.F Sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas cannot be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. That said the crosswalk shown from the accessible parking space access aisle is not allowed. 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 |
| 01/31/2022 | 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: Rook-Bellevue Homes ACTIVITY NO: Dp21-0361 Address: 6207 E Bellevue St Zoning: R-3 Existing Use: vacant property Proposed Use: Multi-family residential TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 31, 2022 DUE DATE: February 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. 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 collective landscape plans (planting, irrigation and water harvesting) 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 plans which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. a. That said, the grading and drainage plan solution impacts the PIP trees as well as the street border landscape. b. Please fill out title blocks 2. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 3. Please provide landscape calculations for required trees for the parking areas, Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.A.2.c and landscape borders, UDC Technical Standards 2-10.4.2.f & g. 4. An interior landscape border is required adjacent to single-family residential uses (north). 5. Please label the existing rights of way for Bellevue St and N Rook Ave, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 6. 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 and it is required to meet all. 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. Consider using trees that provide more/denser shade in parking areas. 7. Please add/call out soil moisture gauge/tensiometers and rain shut-off device on irrigation plans and details. UDC Tech Standards 4.01-2.A. 8. Please indicate the installation of a private submeter if a separate irrigation meter is not being provided. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.6.1.A.1. 9. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 10. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. The code section on the Landscape Notes is incorrect. 11. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting plan is required. Multi-family projects are commercial developments. UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.0.0. and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening. 12. Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on water harvesting or landscape plans. 13. Retention/detention basins should be designed naturally and organically, whenever practicable. 14. Decomposed granite is prohibited on basin floors, unless 4” or greater in size, hydroseed is allowed. 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 |
| 02/17/2022 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | (The PLAN mentioned below can be viewed in the "Documents" section of PRO: "Pima Co Addressing review comments, first submittal, 02.14.22") Email from: <Addressing@pima.gov> To: CDRC Mon 2/14/2022 5:03 PM DP21-0361, Rook-Bellevue Homes is returned for comments. Please see plan for comments. Nicholas Jordan, Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 724-9623 |
| 02/25/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Are these units going to be rentals and or are they owned units? If they are rental units they will fall under the IFC and will require a fire sprinkler system in each unit and that will require a minimum 3/4" meter from TW. Please advise. Gates will require a KNOX Key switch and a permit from TFD as well. Please add notes to the drawings. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 02/28/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Andie Hemmah Mon 2/28/2022 10:17 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0361 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - Rook-Bellevue Homes. Multi-family with single family units. 6207 E BELLEVUE ST Fee Balance: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. 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: 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 all documents for quicker downloading of your documents on our end Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Building Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov |