Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP21-0351
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Alpha Chi Omega Sorority – Building Addition Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0351 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 20, 2022 DUE DATE: January 24, 2022 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 December 21, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0351, 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 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – Zoning and Land Use Note 1 calls out “LIGHT INDUSTRIAL”, R-3 is not a light industrial zone. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Review UDC TABLE 4.8-2: PERMITTED USES - URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES and provide the applicable Use Specific Standards for a Group Dwelling in the R-3 Zone. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As code modification will be needed, see comments 8 & 10, once approved provide the case number(s), adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable list all conditions of approval. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – Clearly identify if new beds/bedrooms are proposed in the additions and if so how many new beds/bedrooms are proposed. 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. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – The Zoning listed for the parcels to the north of the alley is not correct. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – As this site is nonconforming for parking and an expansion is proposed the nonconforming status is terminated and the site must meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4, see UDC Article 9.3.3. Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - As this site is nonconforming for parking and an expansion is proposed the nonconforming status is terminated and the site must meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4, see UDC Article 9.3.3. All vehicle parking is required on site see UDC Article 7.4.6.B. Demonstrate on the plan how this requirement is met. If off-site parking is proposed demonstrate how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.6.B.1 are met. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.K the use of streets or alleys for direct access to vehicle parking for this use is not allowed. That said the seven (7) spaces along the north & east side of the property do not count toward the provided number of spaces. Zoning acknowledges that some type of code modification, i.e. variance, IPP, will be required to meet parking requirements. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The required perimeter yards listed under “PERIMETER YARDS” are not correct. The north and west should be listed as 10’ or ¾ the height of the exterior wall, greater of the two, 1st Street should be listed as 20’ or 1-1/2 times the height of the exterior wall, greater of the two, and Martin should be listed as 10’. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The proposed perimeter yard setback from the addition along the east side of the building does not meet the side street perimeter yard setback requirement of 10’0”, see UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.b. Depending on how the vehicle parking comments are addressed and if a variance is applied for the perimeter yard setback can be processed with the parking issues. If some other process is use for the vehicle parking at a minimum a Design Development Option will need to be submitted and approved to reduce the setback. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – There appears to be some type patio cover shown along the south side of the building, clearly show this structure on the plan, provide the height and a street perimeter yard setback to 1st St. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per ICC A117.1-2009 Section 505.10 handrails shall extend beyond and in the same direction of the stair flights. The proposed handrails called out under Keynote 24 do not meet this requirement. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@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 |
| 01/24/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/24/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/24/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/24/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Jason Morse Thu 2/24/2022 3:20 PM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0351 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - Alpha Chi Omega Sorority. Building additions and site hardscape improvements. 1775 E 1ST ST FEE BALANCE: $ 1,899.07 Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW category fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENT If amount doesn't match "Fees Due", check back 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 field blank 4- "Continue" 5- In the Pay column - check the boxes 6- "Continue" YOUR NEXT STEPS 1. SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab to see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL and include: 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to REQUIRES CHANGE comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff Please title your SECOND submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter FILEDROP for your Resubmittal https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - Select "Existing Application" - In the "Permit Number" field, enter the number and, if applicable, any notes for our staff - Select "PLANS" for all documents for quicker downloading of your documents on our end Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Building Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov |
| 12/24/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/24/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Engineering was approved by Loren Makus during the OK to Submit. |