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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T20CM00486
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/28/2020 | MTAKU1 | ZONING_HISTORIC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/01/2020 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Section Manager PROJECT: Cano Drug / Hop Lee Laundry Rehab - The Flin T20CM00486 Building Plans (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 1, 2020 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the approved development package DP17-0038. While the building plans are consistent with the approved DP as it relates to the zoning review purview of the building footprint, building height, square footage, site conditions etc., zoning cannot approve the building plans until PDSD Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans and the following comment is addressed. 1. Design Professional review must be completed prior to Zoning review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 06/07/2020 | MGAYOSS1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Rick Gonzalez, Architect 214 E Suffolk Drive, Tucson, Az. 85704 (520) 850-7401 gonzalezrick34@gmail.com DATE: June 4, 2020 TO: Maria Gayosso, Urban Planner/Principal Planner/Project Manager, City of Tucson FROM: Rick Gonzalez, Architect (#26992) COT On-Call Design Professional RE: CD Review, The Flin , T.I. Flin House and Stables, T20CM00486 I have reviewed the Cano Drug/Hop Lee Laundry Rehab Construction Documents, submitted May 2020 for the purpose of determining its conformance with design requirements based upon Unified development Code (UDC) Section 5.12 IID (Downtown Core Sub-District DCS); and Rio Nuevo Area (RNA), of the required plans and documents submitted to PDSD. Submittal Requirements Status 1. Streetscape Design: Refer to Comment 1 pedestrian orientation: below Architectural elements/details at the 1st two levels – ground floor windows – 50% of frontage, single N/A existing facade plane 50' max with no architectural detail. ID historic structure front doors – graphics, lighting, or similar. Commercial or retail at 1st floor. Sidewalks – maintain with safe widths to adjoining properties with outdoor seating, dining, landscape, if existing maintain bus pull-outs, and safe drive-throughs. 2. Shade: Refer to Comment 2 50% of sidewalk areas on Summer Solstice, use trees, below arcades, canopies, shade structures historically compatible with context except where not feasible. 3. Development Transition Standards: Refer to Comment 3 mitigate noise, odor, vibration relative to residential uses below nearby. Maximum height 25-30' and 30' from property Bulk standards are not lines. Reduce bulk relative to residential, breaking mass, applicable to this projected windows at 2nd level to reduce views into residential areas. Balconies to orient away or screen from residential areas. Buffer and screen from residential landscaping, walls, decorative features and other 'best practices. Orient service ares away from residential with mitigation methods described above, same with parking areas. Best Practice Alternatives may be offered for compliance. Provide site utility layouts... Utility layouts provided 4. Rio Nuevo Design Standards Refer to Comment 4 Ina addition to the above design standards avoid heat and below glare, provide bike parking to avoid conflicts with pedestrians. Colors chosen should be compatible with surrounding context. Same with use of materials, patterns, in the Downtown area. Provide 24 hour street level activity using retail, office, residential uses. Public access from level... residential access may be elevated or from parking areas. 5. Site Parking: Complies minimum 6' paths, vehicle points of ingress/egress. Keep employee parking remote for patron easy access. 5% of gross area – plaza courtyards, patios for outdoor multi-use and gathering where possible. Site parking to be on-site or within ¼ mile. 6. Downtown Core Subdistrict (DCS): Refer to Comment 5 Maximum building height – 60, drought-tolerant below landscaping, bike parking required. Solid waste collection alternatives provided. General Comments: Based on review of the Cano Drug/Hop Lee Laundry Rehab Plan Set, I recommend further review relative to comments below: Comment 1: Enhance entries, front doors need to be visually highlighted by graphics, lighting, or similar features. All surrounding areas appear to be hardscape, no seating areas, landscape, no lighting along existing outside walls or pathways like courtyard. Provide landscape and safety lighting plans. Comment 2: provide a shade plan showing shade will be provided for at least 50% of all sidewalks and pedestrian access paths as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when the sun is 82 degrees above the horizon. Shade may be provided by trees, arcades, canopies, or shade provided their location and design characteristics that are compatible with the historic and design context of the surrounding pathways and the architectural integrity of the building. Use plantings and shade structures to meet this standard. Shade provided by a building may serve to meet this standard. Comment 3: Service areas effectively face parking structures. However, windows at or above the second story need to be treated to reduce views into adjacent affected residential apartment units; Balconies oriented toward affected residential apartment units shall provide a screening device to reduce views into windows of the affected residential property. As an alternate, urban design best practices may be presented as an option for compliance. Comment 4: Provide color elevations or rendering. Colors may conform to the overall color palette and context of the historic structures and Downtown area or may be used expressively to create visual interest, variety, and path rhythms. The rationale for an expressive or idiosyncratic use of color shall be described in the site plan submittal; New applications of materials, patterns, and elements shall respect original historic context and relate to the traditional context of the Downtown area. Because activity is limited to apartment residents, surrounding pathway activity can be limited to hours of operation. Comment 5: Consider adding drought tolerant landscaping and indicate the palette of hardscape used. Indicate the location and quantity of bike parking provided and location of solid waste collection and/or waste alternatives provided. Sincerely, Rick Gonzalez, Architect RGA |
| 07/20/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/20/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, June 18, 2020 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL 1. Regarding the architect’s response to previous Building review comment 2, item IID-17-01//HPZ-19-34 on the submitted Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission Plans Review Subcommittee Legal Action Report appears to be limited to the “Revised location of mechanical unit on top of porch behind 2nd floor of the Cano Building.” I do not see confirmation of your statement “attached is a Legal Action Report from the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on 06.17.2019 which states that this project, including the work on the façade, has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.” The Zoning reviewer’s comment refers to an “approved historic plan” and you provided elevations in response as the approved plans from the June 6, 2019, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. However, as stated, there is no reference in the Report to anything but the mechanical unit. Please submit something that confirms that these elevations were discussed and approved by the Subcommittee as part of the 5/9/19 and 6/17/19 presentations. 2. The architect’s response to previous Building review comment 5, is, “continuous R-15 batt insulation is provided on the exterior walls of the new addition which exceeds the 2018 IECC Table 402.1.3 requirement for continuous R-5.7 insulation.” This is a questionable statement because the thermal bridging effect through the metal studs reduces the insulation value of the assembly. The only way to know if an 8” mass wall with metal furring studs and R-15 cavity insulation performs as well as a mass wall with R-5.7 continuous insulation is to use COMcheck or other approved software analysis program which take into account all materials, air spaces, wall exposure, etc. The prescriptive method of the IECC only looks at insulation values and whether the insulation is continuous or cavity. The previous review comment still stands. Either provide continuous R-5.7 insulation, perhaps between inside face of masonry and metal furring, or provide a COMcheck. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/20/2020 | JGARCIA1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Passed |
| 07/20/2020 | JGARCIA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/20/2020 | JGARCIA1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |