Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP21-0325
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/06/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/25/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 841 E Bantam Rd Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0325 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 25, 2022 DUE DATE: July 28, 2022 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. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – The text within the footprint of the building on sheet 2 is not readable. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – Along the south side of the building the pedestrian circulation and vehicle use area show on sheets 2-6 do not match what is shown on sheets 7-8 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 3. COMMENT: 2-06.3.5 – Remove the old “DEVELOPMENT PACAKGE PDSD APPROVAL” stamp from sheet 2 as it is no longer used. Once the DP is approvable an electronic stamp will be applied to all sheets. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide an email addressed for the electrical Engineer listed on sheet 1. 5. 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. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0235, adjacent to the title block on sheets 3-6. Also, remove case number DP17-0239 from sheet 4. 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 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The use listed under note 3 sheet 1, “CHURCH” is not a use classified in the UDC and should be listed as RELIGIOUS USE. 8. 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 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.2 - Under note 4 sheet 1 you list the minimum lot size as “5,000 SF” which is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-2.B: EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, R-2 Zone the minimum lot size for a religious and educational use is 20,000 SF. 10. 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: 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 8 is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 8 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking space calculation shall include the number required and provided. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 74.9.B.1.d. 25. 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. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage, height and specific use proposed within the footprint of the building. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – The 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 Ross at Nicholas.Ross@tucsonaz.gov. To resubmit your plans for additional review, please visit: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 08/02/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/04/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: ACTIVITY NO: DP21-0325 Address: 841 E Bantam Rd Zoning: R-2 Existing Use: Religious use Proposed Use: Religious use TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 4, 2022 DUE DATE: July 28, 2022 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants and water harvesting. General Note - UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data - All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. 1. Please provide all landscape calculations on the landscape plan, including required trees for the parking areas, Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.A.2.c and landscape borders, UDC Technical Standards 2-10.4.2.f & g. 2. Please label the existing rights of way for Bantam Rd, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 3. Installing landscape/irrigation in the right of way requires approval from DoT&M, contact david.marhefka@tucsonaz.gov, plans cannot be approved without the department’s consent. 4. The submitted plan has missing symbols and information, as well as components that don’t relate to this project, please review UDC Administration Manual 2-10.4.2.C and Technical Standards Manual Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards. 5. Please indicate the installation of a private submeter if a separate irrigation meter is not being provided. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.6.1.A.1. 6. Identify the type of irrigation controller with soil moisture gauge, tensiometer, weather station and/or evaportranspiration data. UDC Tech Standards 4-01.4.A. 7. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 8. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package YOUR NEXT STEPS: Submit documents to the Filedrop https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp Select "Existing Application" 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires changes comments) 2) Plan Set (or individual sheets) 3) Any other items requested by review staff If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/15/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Plans show two gates located at the front of the property. Confirm that the fire department access and gate width are 20'. Gates provided shall be provided with a KNOX gate key switch and KNOX Box (noted shall be made on the drawings. Building will require a fire sprinkler system and possible alarm system. Please contact me so that we can discuss further. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 Fire Plans Examiner |
| 08/29/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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 |
| 08/29/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | email from: COTDSDPermits To: Rene Flores 08/29/2022 REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0325 Site/Grading - Iglesia de Cristo Church. Addition to building. 841 E BANTAM RD FEE BALANCE: $ 511.50 ONLINE PAYMENTS ** If the online amount doesn't match "Fee Balance" above, check again in a few hours ** https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave this blank 4- "Continue" 5- In the Pay column - check the boxes YOUR NEXT STEPS 1. SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. Title your SECOND submittal documents accordingly, example: 2_Comment Response Letter 3. UPLOAD documents to Filedrop: - Comment Response Letter (your response to REQUIRES CHANGE comments) - Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) - Documents requested by review staff FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - "Existing Application" - "Permit Number" field: enter the number (and any notes for our staff) Sharon Beasley, Certified Permit Technician City of Tucson, Planning & Development Services Dept. Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (for development packages, land splits, Thursday Presubmittal meetings) Email: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov (for building permits) |