Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1223-00486
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/14/2024 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 04/25/2024 | Site Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 03/14/2024 | Site Landscape | APPROVED | |||
| 04/26/2024 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 04/26/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Jacobs Park Improvements Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-1223-00486 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2024 DUE DATE: April 26, 2024 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 January 11, 2025. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – The sheet index shows “30-31 L1.1-L1.2” but no sheet L1.1 was provided but a sheet L1.3 was. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 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 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – Provide a general note stating "Existing zoning is R-1." 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Review UDC Table 4.8-2 and revise the Proposed Use listed under Project Data to include the applicable Use Specific Standards. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – It does not appear that the lot coverage calculation is correct. Per UDC Article 6.4.3.B.3.a includes all buildings on the site but does not include sidewalks. 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. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1, RECREATION USE GROUP, the correct ratio for a swimming pool greater than 1,000 is 1 space per 200 sq. ft. not 2,000 sf as shown on the plan. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide the number of required and provided van accessible spaces within the vehicle parking calculation. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Detail 3 sheet 27 shows accessible parking space widths as “PER PLAN” but no width dimensions were provided on the plans. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The total number of required short-term bicycle parking spaces “27” is not correct and should be 28. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – There are numerous areas where the accessible sign is located within the sidewalk area. Clearly demonstrate that the proposed signs do not encroach into the required 4’-0” required sidewalk width, TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As parking vehicles are allowed to overhang sides clearly show the 2’-6” vehicle overhang and demonstrate on the plan that the minimum 4’;-0” sidewalk width is maintained, TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf. |
||
| 03/12/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/25/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | No Comments David Stiffey David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |