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: Stopped
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP22-0143
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Stopped
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Stop | |
| 06/15/2022 | ANY | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Stopped | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: lisa bowers, erin h. Thu 7/7/2022 9:10 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP22-0143 Project Description: Site/Grading/Swppp - Pima Apartments. Two new 3-story group dwellings. 3108 E PIMA ST FEE BALANCE: $ 1,840.39 Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW category fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENTS ** If the online amount doesn't match "Fee Balance" shown above, 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 - 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) |
| 06/23/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide a cleanout immediately prior to the building sewers from buildings #1 and #2 enter the right of way. Reference: Pima County Standard Detail RWRD 401. 2. The maximum distance between cleanouts shall be 100-feet, measured along the developed pipe length (one example in the building #1 sewer and two examples in the building #2 sewer). Reference: Section 708.1.1, IPC 2018. |
| 06/27/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Pima Apartments – 3108 E Pima St Development Package (1st Review) DP22-0143 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 27, 2022 DUE DATE: June 27, 2022 COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings and 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 May 29, 2023. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide all required information for the Owner/Developer listed on the first sheet. If you are going to show the Owner/Developer on all sheets provide all required info. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0143, 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – General Note 4 needs to clearly show that Use Specific Standard only applies to the R-3 Zoned portion of the site. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.5 – The density calculation is not correct. The 36 units per acre only applies to the portion of the site that is zoned R-3. Provide a calculation that breaks out the acreage for the area that is zoned O-3 and R-3 and the allowed and proposed density for each area. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – The lot coverage only applies to the portion of the site that is zoned R-3 not the entire site. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.d – As you are proposing a phased development all calculations should show what is proposed for Phase 1 & Phase 2, i.e. it does not appear that all bicycle parking will be installed in Phase 1, etc. 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.E – As this site is made up of five (5) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor’s Combo Request form with you next submittal. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.G – As the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met from the fence, called out under Keynote 20, to the PAAL along the east side of the O-3 zoned parcel and north side of the R-3 parcel. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met from the Gang Mail Boxes, called out under Keynote 29, to the PAAL. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As you are proposing a phased development and not all bicycle parking, short- & long-term, will be provided in the 1st phase which means the proposed reduction based on providing additional bicycle parking is not complete provide a Phase 1 vehicle parking spaces calculation that clearly demonstrates that the vehicle parking requirements are met. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – For the vehicle parking spaces shown along the north side of the 26’ wide PAAL within the R-3 zoned portion of the site demonstrate that a parking vehicle will not encroach into the 2’-6” overhang of the angled parking to the north. Also, as required trees are proposed along the north side of this parking demonstrate how parking vehicles will not damage the required landscaping, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - As you are proposing a phased development and the 2018 IBC Section 1106.6 requires that the accessible spaces be located on the shortest accessible route one (1) of the spaces located near Building #1 needs to be van accessible. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For the short-term bicycle parking provided along the north side of Building #1 demonstrate that the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g are met. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setback show from Building #1 to Camilla Bl is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 6.4.5.C-I, ADT over 140 but less than 1,000, the perimeter yard setback should be measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Provide a proposed height for the fence called out under Keynote 20. If the height exceeds 6’-0” demonstrate that the fence either meets the perimeter yard setback requirements or the requirements of UDC Article 6.6.2.I. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Based on the location of the phase line the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A do not appear to be met. Clearly show how this requirement is met. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – The proposed striped crosswalk area along the north side of the trash enclosures does not work as any time there is trash pickup the required pedestrian circulation will be blocked. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.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 |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Needs Review | |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Needs Review | |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Needs Review | |
| 07/07/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2022 | ANY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Stopped |