Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0523-00238
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/18/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | APPROVED | |||
| 09/07/2023 | Zoning Modifications - IPP | APPROVED | Approval of the Individual Parking Plan (IPP) per Director's Notice of Decision uploaded into the Attachments for the development package file. Resubmittal of the development package is required, with a copy of the Director's Decision notice. | ||
| 09/18/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 08/25/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Scented Leaf Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0523-00238 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 25, 2023 DUE DATE: September 17, 2023 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 May 11, 2024. COMMENT: As revised plans and a detailed response letter were not submitted Zoning has not reviewed on this second submittal. Zoning acknowledges that an IPP is proposed. Until the IPP is approved and all comments are addressed Zoning cannot approve the DP. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the case number on sheets 5 – 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0523-00238, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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. 2. This comment was not addressed correctly. The access aisle width shown for the eastern most accessible vehicle parking space does not meet the requirement of 60” of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.4.2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a width dimension for the access aisle so that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.4.2 can be verified. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clarify what you are proposing for the required vehicle parking? The Calculation shows 42 space required & 13 provided but does not address any reductions or variances. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Cleary demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.g are met for the short-term bicycle parking shown south of the access aisle for the eastern most accessible vehicle parking space. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For the northern most bicycle rack, clearly demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g are met to the rack directly south. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Demonstrate how the requirement of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e is met. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For the short-term bicycle parking clearly demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, .g, 7.4.9.B.2.g, & .h are met. 7. This comment was not fully addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For the long-term bicycle parking clearly demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.g, & 7.4.9.D.5 are met. 8. The comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2.a for nonresidential and multifamily development abutting an Arterial or Collector Street the minimum required street perimeter yard is ten feet, as measured from the existing or future property line as determined by the adopted Major Streets and Routes Plan, whichever is greater. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setbacks listed are not correct. Review the recent amendments to the UDC found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/development-code-update, and provide the correct setbacks. 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 & detailed response letter. |
||
| 08/22/2023 | Traffic Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-0523-00238 (6610 E TANQUE VERDE RD TUCSON, AZ 85715) Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter which states how all comments were addressed. Comments: 1. Please include a detailed drawing of the northern corner of the property showing how new on-site circulation path will connect to the sidewalk. Show ADA landings. 2. Where adjoining sidewalk from the property ties to sidewalk along the ROW frontage, a 60” X 60” ADA landing is required. Landings shall be 60” X 60” and not to exceed a 2% cross slope in all directions. The current drawing does not meet this requirement because there is not a 60” x 60” landing at the top of the curb ramp in the northern corner of the property. Please flare the on-site circulation path near the connection to the sidewalk to create this landing. Faffs Riederer Faffs.Riederer@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 08/18/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED |