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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: NPZ DISTRICT REVIEW v.4
Plan Number - SD-0525-00065
Review Name: NPZ DISTRICT REVIEW v.4
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Review - Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | ||||
| Special Districts Application Completeness Express | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Jefferson Park Design Manual: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/city-services/planning-development-services/documents/jefferson_park_design_manual_final.pdf Special Districts Application Checklist: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/pdsd/documents/submission-documents/special_districts_application_instructions_7.18.23.pdf Lot coverage and calculations on site plan are incorrect, RFAR missing. Please refer to text of my 9 July 2025 email informally reviewing a draft submittal, most of my comments still apply to this submittal: Good morning Alex, Per the Special Districts checklist (Attached): Project Description: This has not been updated, still shows old dimensions for building heights. This should be updated for accuracy, and to include the project scope only - materials information is in the "Elevations of proposed development" item. Please refer to the outline on page 3 of attached pdf for organization of contents. The description states "no change to utilities," but the plan set shows a new overhead, new 400A service, new UGE lines to one ADU and the existing residence. Building footprint does not match plan drawings. An outline of requested modifications or exemptions should be included here for items discouraged by the design manual. Design Narrative: This is a narrative statement addressing items from the compatibility worksheet. If this is presented as a table, please present as a single table with responses next to their defining characteristics. This section should include responses to the specific Compatibility Review Criteria in the Jefferson Park Design Manual (Attached). Building Massing requirements are unaddressed. Scale requirements are unaddressed. Aerial Photograph of Subject Property: Missing, please see description for requirements. Proposed Site Plan: Multiple items not indicated - Pedestrian Ways. Massing and Scale information should also be included in this section. There are three different lot sizes shown (7,615sqft, 7,500sqft, 6,773sqft). Plan shows new 3/4" water service running underneath ADU 2. Coverage information only accounts for one ADU. ADU is 24x18.5 feet, which is 444 square feet, not 442 square feet as indicated. Photographs of Surrounding Area: Key Map and Labels must include addresses (See descriptions accompanying checklist). Images have multiple trees/vehicles obscuring view. Elevations of Existing Structures: Elevations are scale drawings, not photographs. The drawn elevation is not fully dimensioned. Footer and grade missing from drawing. Elevations of Proposed Development: Visibility from the street not demonstrated. Relationship to existing development and the parcel not indicated. Only includes elevations for one ADU. Proposed color not shown. As this is for multiple new structures, it's recommended to a set of parcel elevations including the existing and proposed structures. From the Design Professional's Comments: "Neighborhood Compatibility Worksheet Disorganized. Hard to understand. Missing several key items." - This was not sufficiently addressed. "Authorization Letter" - still not included. "Defining Characteristics & Privacy Analysis" - Privacy measures must be reflected in plan and elevation drawings. Lot coverage appears to be based on a single ADU using measurements for RFAR calculations. Lot coverage and RFAR must include calculations for entire project. Height on elevations and height on description mismatch. Building dimensions also mismatched with description. I'm not seeing where RFAR (Residential Floor Area Ratio) is being computed for the project. For Design Professional Comments, the required information must be incorporated into the design package. Responding with comments only in the response letter is insufficient. Comments about window visual compatibility were unaddressed. Notes on Design Professional's Findings: Narrative needs to be composed in an organized fashion. Splitting requirements from responses, using multiple fonts/colors/sizes will not be sufficient. Responses should be detailed and accurate. Massing requirements still not described adequately. Please refer to findings 4 and 5. RFAR requirements still apply. Accurate calculations must be included. ADU size limits still apply on a per-ADU basis. Total lot coverage requirements of the NPZ still apply. Second floor maximums of the NPZ still apply. Accurate calculations required. Narrative should include a line-by-line description of compliance with general architectural requirements. Window requirements still have not been addressed. Summary: Your resubmittal needs to be sufficiently organized for a thorough and timely review. All required items must be included and labeled accurately. Narrative portions should be formatted consistently and neatly organized. Missing measurements must be provided, and measurements must be consistent across different sections of the application. In order to account for staff time reviewing your application, please make your next resubmittal through the TDC Online portal. Thank you, Gabriel Sleighter Lead Planner, PDSD gabriel.sleighter@tucsonaz.gov |