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: DEV PKG - OK TO SUBMIT
Permit Number - DP21-0151
Review Name: DEV PKG - OK TO SUBMIT
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/18/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/23/2021 | ALEXANDRA HINES | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Wilmot & 5th Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0151 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 26, 2021 DUE DATE: July 23, 2021 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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 June 22, 2022. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.7 – Move the location map to the upper right corner of the cover sheet and label all streets that abut this site and label the section corners. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0151, adjacent to the title block 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – The ‘CURRENT ZONING: OCR-1” listed is not correct and should be OCR-2. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed 5. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).” 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove all references to FLOOR AREA RATIO & LOT COVERAGE as per TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, OCR-2 Zone they are not applicable. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.d – Remove the second set of “SITE DATA” as this site operates as a single site. 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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number. The required number of vehicle parking spaces should be 205. List the code section for the proposed reduction 7.4.5.E.3 with in the calculation. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The number of required accessible parking spaces is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 when you provide 204 spaces the required number of accessible spaces is 7. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – The loading space calculation required number is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Commercial Services Use Group (Section 11.3.4) none are required. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The short- & long-term bicycle required numbers are not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. The required short-term should be 8 and the long-term should be 3. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Show the location of the proposed additional short-term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .C are met. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setback shown under “SITE DATA” and the setback line shown on the plan are not correct. As this site boarders on a street, Wilmot Rd and 5th St, both designated on the COT MS&R map the site qualifies for developing area setback, see the definition of established area setback. That said the street perimeter yard setbacks should be 21’ or the height of the proposed/existing exterior building wall, greater of the two, measured from the back of existing or future curb, greater of the two, see UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 & Table 6.4.5.C-1 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The setback lines shown on the plan are not correct. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, OCR-2 Zone, Nonres Use to Nonres Zone the setback is 0’-0” not 20’ as shown on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 06/25/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/28/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Passed |