Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Permit Number - DP21-0325
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2023 | Fire New Construction | APPROVED | Gates shall have knox key switch if electric or knox key box if manual. | ||
| 03/03/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 03/03/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. There isn't enough contours/spot grades in the proposed development to show runoff actually making it into the proposed basins A, B, C or the rec retention area. Revise as necessary to clarify the runoff routing on the plans and in the drainage report. 2. The cover sheet note states all landscaped areas to be depressed 6", the rec retention area is shown as depressed 9" on the grading plan and 4" in the drainage report, and the basins A-C are labeled as depressed 9" in the plans. Please clarify. Also, the drainage report is showing proposed basketball net, volleyball court, and a concrete slab in the rec retention area. Is it only proposed to be a temporary retention basin? 3. Provide complete discussion, calculations, tables, and exhibits to establish accomplishment of first flush requirements. Include an exhibit comparable to Figure 2.1 in the Retention/Detention Manual that shows undisturbed area, disturbed area, impervious surfaces, non-contributing basins with landscape, stormwater harvesting basins including first flush, watershed #, stormwater harvesting basin #, and flow direction. Also include both tables 2.2 and 2.3 in the same section of the Retention/Detention Manual to demonstrate required/achieve retention volumes. 4. Critical basin requires a 15% reduction in post development discharges, revise the drainage report to reflect this. Also clarify how and where runoff both enters and exits the basins used for detention with discharges associated. 5. Please clarify the construction composition of the basins A-C, the plans are showing existing wall and gates going through them but also existing vertical curbing around them that is to be removed. 6. The wall and gate on the plans are shown not lined up with the access drives they are associated with, please revise. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/13/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. No response letter included nor modifications made, previous comments from July still apply. | ||
| 02/28/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 841 E Bantam Rd Development Package (2nd Review) DP21-0325 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 28, 2023 DUE DATE: March 8, 2023 This comment was not addressed. 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 July 05, 2023. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – The text within the footprint of the building on sheet 2 is not readable. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide an email addressed for the electrical Engineer listed on sheet 1. 3. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) 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 4. This comment was not addressed. Religious education is not a use defined in the UDC. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Under note 3 sheet 1 you list “EDUCATION” as a use. Clarify if the education use is strictly for religious class associated with the proposed Religious use or will it be a separate school with classes held Monday thru Friday. If it will be a separate school that operates Monday thru Friday provide the applicable Use Specific Standards listed under UDC Table 4.8-2 and clearly demonstrate that all Use Specific Standards are clearly met on the plan. 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 5. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Remove note 23 sheet 1 as Bantam Rd is not designated on the COT MS&R Map. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan that meets the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.3. Until comment 8 is addressed the requirements cannot be verified. Review UDC TABLE 6.3-2.B: EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS for the allowed lot coverages. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – Provide width dimensions for the pavement, curb and sidewalks long Bantam Rd. 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. 8. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 along the area between the building and the north end of the vehicle parking area along the east and west side of the eastern and western “STRIPED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH, shown on sheet 2 and called out under Keynote 14. 9. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 8 is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. 10. This comment was not fully addressed. The calculation does not provide the number of accessible spaces required or van accessible space required. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number of required accessible spaces and the number required and provided van accessible spaces. 11. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a vehicle parking space detail for a standard, parallel and accessible vehicle parking space that provides the space depth, width and wheel stop location dimension. 12. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The wheel stop location dimension shown on the plan is not correct. Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and provide the correct dimension on the requested details. 13. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Keynote 17 calls out a “18.5’ l” for the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces which is not correct. Review UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.c and provide the correct dimension on the detail. 14. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The mounting height dimensions for the disabled parking sign shown on detail 1 sheet 2 is not correct and should be 60” for signs not within a pedestrian way and 84’ for signs within a pedestrian way. 15. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 8 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. 16. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking space calculation shall include the number required and provided. 17. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d a single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said based on Keynote 3 sheet 2 clarify how you are providing 5 short-term spaces. 18. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Detail 3 sheet 2 does not meet the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.f, 7.4.9.B.2.g & 7.4.9.B.2.h. 19. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The western most bicycle parking space show near the southwest corner of the building appears to hang off of what appears to be a sidewalk area, demonstrate that the entire required space meets UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d. 20. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a long-term bicycle parking spaces detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met. 21. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage, height and specific use proposed within the footprint of the building. 22. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B a sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. This sidewalk is also required to be physically separated from the vehicle use area, see TSM Section 7-01.4.2. Clearly demonstrate that the above is met for the area just south of the building. 23. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate how a disabled person will gain access to the required sidewalk along the south of the building. 24. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. 25. This comment was not fully addressed. Clearly show the sign on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – There is a call-out along the south end of the parcel, “Church sign” clearly show the sign on the plan and provide a general note stating all signage requires a separate permit. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and detailed comment response letter. |