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 - DP22-0038
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 03/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 03/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 03/17/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Reqs Change | See the "Documents" section of PRO for document titled: "TEP, first submittal review comments, 03.22.22" |
| 03/22/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, 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 backwater valve. Determine the need for a backwater valve for each building. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 03/23/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Grand Peaks Apartments Development Package (1st Review) DP22-0038 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 23, 2022 DUE DATE: March 30, 2022 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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 February 24, 2023 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0038, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6 – If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. 2-06.4.7.A.8 – For development package documents provide: 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide the proposed lot coverage on the plan. 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. 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – It appears that some type of land split/plat is proposed. Clarify what is proposed and what ever process will need to be completed prior to approval of this DP. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Sheet 6 at the southeast end of the 28’ PAAL some type of barrier is required, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Show the required 1’-0” setback from the PAAL to the proposed covered parking structures, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(1). 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Sheet 7 & 8 just east of the proposed accessible parking spaces for the clubhouse you show a 3’ vehicle overhang when else where on the site you have shown a 2’-6”, why the difference. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The both accessible parking calculation lists “2%”. 2% only comes into play when you have over 500 proposed spaces. If you are looking at the calculation for the overall site than the total number of required spaces would only be 14. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The required number of short-term bicycle parking spaces shown for Lot 6 is not correct and should be 45, see Article 7.4.3.G. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage and height within the foot print of all buildings. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Demonstrate how mail service will be provided. 9. COMMENT: - Per PAD-21 Section III.N provide an approval letter from the DRC. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Ross at Nocholas.Ross@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 |
| 03/23/2022 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Plans show that access gates are being installed. Gates shall have a KNOX Key Switch installed at the card/access reader point Gates shall be a minimum of 12' with a divided roadway IFC 2018, Appendix D, D103.5 Building heights are not listed so unsure if fire department aerial access meeting IFC 2018, Appendix D, Section D105 is requires Roads show that they are 24' wide but the roads are fire department access roads with hydrants installed and shall be 26' wide, IFC 2018, Appendix D, Section D103.1 Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 Fire Plans Examiner |
| 04/04/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Email from: Howard Dutt To: CDRC Thu 3/31/2022 9:47 AM No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard Dutt, RLA Project Manager/Landscape Architect Parks and Recreation | City of Tucson Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/05/2022 | DSTIFFE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | DP22-0038 Comments: 1. Sheet 6 & 8, provide "keynote" reference on plan that states that sidewalk in the ROW will be constructed per P.A.G. standard 200- minimum width 5 Ft. 2. Sheet 6 & 8, provide "Keynote" reference on plan that states that curb access ramps in the ROW will be constructed per P.A.G. standard 207. 3. Sheet 10, although the farthest west entrance is "emergency access only," the entry needs to be constructed per approved standard. Either P.A.G. standard 206 driveway apron, or approved entry with curb returns- minimum 18 Ft radius. David Stiffey DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/13/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | See the "Documents" section of PRO for document titled: "Tucson Airport Auth, review comments, first submittal, 03.31.22" |
| 04/29/2022 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Reqs Change | (From #2 below, "...attached for your reference..." - see Documents section of PRO, document titled "ADOT letter to Rick Engineering regarding Traffic Impact Analysis, 03.21.22") Email from: Jay Gomes <jgomes@azdot.gov> To: CDRC Fri 4/29/2022 2:27 PM 1. This DP22-0038 has the same Traffic Impact Analysis report from DP21-0281. 2. Correspondence was sent to CDRC on March 28 with our review/comments of the TIA, with DP21-0281, attached for your reference. We have not received the revised TIA yet for review and comment/acceptance. It details the driveway for Block 5 connecting to Valencia within the WB Valencia right turn lane taper to the WB I-10 Onramp which is not acceptable. 3. In previous discussions with this development, the Developer has been made aware that with our current, recently approved Design Concept Report for I-10, the existing median opening 400' east of Valencia will close when the Project occurs in the future, which is also detailed in the correspondence to the TIA preparer. As always, feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this item. Thank you. Jay Gomes ADOT |
| 05/02/2022 | 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: Grand Peaks Apartments ACTIVITY NO: DP22-0038 Address: 5125 E Valencia Crossing Dr Zoning: PAD-21 Existing Use: partially disturbed and undisturbed Sonoran Desert Proposed Use: Multi-family TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 2, 2022 DUE DATE: March 30, 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 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. 2. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 3. Providing an overall landscape plan on one sheet will facilitate the next review. Please add page numbers to Key Map on all sheets. 4. Please provide an entry to the Julian Wash Greenway, and pedestrian crossing on Valencia Crossing Dr, in accordance with PAD-21 documents. 5. Please provide a summary of quantities of mitigation and TOS plants in a manner that makes it simple to cross check between landscape and NPP plans. 6. Please provide an oasis calculation for the sod and any higher water using plants. 7. Provide the seed mix list, botanical name and quantity of each species. Seed mixes should provide soil stabilization not only aesthetic value. 8. PAD-21 requires a landscape border adjacent to residential properties, page 66. The UDC section quoted is only appropriate for already existing rights of way not on the subject parcel. 9. label the existing and future rights of way for Valencia Rd and Valencia Crossing Dr, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 10. Make sure to maximize shading asphalt, the placement of some trees only shade landscape areas. 11. Demonstrate how pedestrian pathways within the development are shaded as required by the PAD. 12. Placing trees along the edge of a parking area or at the ends of parking row does not meet the intent of the UDC. Having one, two or three spaces at the end of a row of parking spots with canopies, still require shading. Please make sure that all trees required for the parking areas are shading asphalt or sidewalk. 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. 13. Please add a detail to show depressed landscape areas or indicate with notes. 14. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 15. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. 16. The grading plan and water harvesting plan do not meet the requirements of the water harvesting ordinance and technical standard. The plan doesn't show the effective use of run-off to supplement irrigation. a. The catchment areas must provide water to the infiltration areas. Revise the grading to direct runoff to the landscape infiltration areas to the maximum extent possible. b. Catchment areas in the water harvesting table can only count the areas that are directed to the landscape infiltration areas. c. Clearly show the areas in each catchment area and the areas of effective infiltration and water harvesting. All landscape areas should be included within infiltration areas. d. UDC section 7.6.6.C requires the use of all runoff to supplement irrigation. Show how this is attained. e. Provide a planting inventory or some other mechanism so we can confirm the canopy areas for each water harvesting infiltration area. Ensure all on-site landscape areas are accounted in the canopy area. f. Show rooftop drainage patterns and show how they are incorporated into the water harvesting calculations. g. Water harvesting areas should be depressed between 6 and 9 inches. These areas can be counted toward first flush retention requirements. 17. 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 COT edits - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes/Detention_Retention_Manual_Tech_Standards_Amemdments.pdf 18. 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 plans 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. 19. Identify the point of drainage off roof areas, amount of flow, and disposition of flow. 20. Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on water harvesting or landscape plans. 21. Indicate basin inlets/outlets on landscape and/or water harvesting plans. Provide spot elevations. 22. Retention/detention basins should be designed naturally and organically, whenever practicable. 23. Please provide the grading activity number for the disturbance on southwest portion of the site (where there is a plant nursery). 24. The NPPO is intended to encourage preservation in place of healthy native plants through sensitive site design that minimizes the disruption of areas within the site containing healthy plants while allowing for salvage and transplanting plants on the site that are likely to survive. Please note that Mesquite hybrids will be considered native trees and should be included in NPP inventory. Please schedule an on-site meeting prior to resubmittal for verification of viable plants on the site. Out of all the mesquites on site, approx. only 14% were rated viable, and of those only 8% designated to be salvaged. 25. Please provide a summary table that indicates total number of each species inventoried, total of TOS, RFS. 26. Please note that smaller caliper trees can used for TOS and may be counted towards larger caliper tree quantities or mitigation plants. 27. Please identify the project monitor prior to any grading activities, UDC 7.7.5. On-monitoring of all aspects of site clearing, grading, plant protection, preservation, salvage, and mitigation must be provided during project construction at the expense of the developer for all residential development that is over five acres and for all commercial and industrial development that is over one acre . The monitoring must be performed by an individual who is qualified in arid lands native plant resource identification and protection as specified in UDC Section 7.7.4.D, Professional Expertise. The monitor must provide periodic progress reports to the developer outlining the status of work accomplished and any problems encountered. A copy of these reports must be submitted to the PDSD for the project file. 28. UDC 7.7.6 The monitor is responsible for an assessment of the condition of the site’s plants one year after the final inspection has been performed on the site. The monitor shall visit the site and prepare a report on plant status, including general plant condition, the identification of plants under stress and the appropriate method to relieve the stress, and recommendations for replacement of plants that are dead or dying. Dead or dying plants must be replaced with the same size plant at a one-to-one ratio of like genus and species. Copies of the report must be submitted to the site owner/developer and to PDSD. The owner must respond to the plant needs as outlined in the status report within six months of report submittal or within a shorter period if required to improve the health of stressed plants and prevent plant loss. 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 The grading plan and water harvesting plan do not meet the requirements of the water harvesting ordinance and technical standard. a. The catchment areas must provide water to the infiltration areas. Revise the grading to direct runoff to the landscape infiltration areas to the maximum extent possible. b. Catchment areas in the water harvesting table can only count the areas that are directed to the |
| 05/06/2022 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 06/07/2022 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. On the first sheet of the plan, include the names and contact details of all consultants used on the project including the geotechnical engineer, drainage engineer and traffic engineer. 2. Clearly demonstrate compliance with UDC 7.6.6.C.2: "Grading, hydrology and landscape structural 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 vehicle or roof area." 3. Revise the SWPPP site map to comply with the Aquifer Protection Permit: R18-9-B301. L. 5. The concrete washout must be at least 50 feet from any drainage structure. 4. Make sure all text is legible and not obscured by other text or drawing element. Loren Makus loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/24/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Tri Miller Fri 6/24/2022 4:59 PM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP22-0038 Project Description: Site/Grading/Swppp - Grand Peaks Apartments. 5125 E VALENCIA CROSSING DR FEE BALANCE: $ 11,769.19 (see image at end of my email) Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW category fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENTS ** If amount doesn't match "Fee Balance", check back in a few hours ** 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" 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 - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. Title your SECOND submittal documents accordingly, example: 2_Comment Response Letter 3. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL to Filedrop: - Comment Response Letter (your response to REQUIRES CHANGE comments) - Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) - Any other documents requested by review staff FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - "Existing Application" - "Permit Number" field: enter the number (and any notes for our staff) - Select "PLANS" for all documents Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Certified Building Technician City of Tucson, Planning & Development Services Dept. Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (for development packages, land splits, Thursday Presubmittal meetings) Email: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov (for building permits) |
| 06/24/2022 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | <See the PDF titled "Pima Co Addressing, first submittal review comments" in PRO> Email from: Nicholas Jordan <Nicholas.Jordan@pima.gov> To: CDRC Wed 6/22/2022 2:39 PM Pima County Addressing is returning DP22-0038 for corrections. Please see sheet 11 for comments. Nicholas Jordan Site Review Project Manager - Addressing Official |