Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Active
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP22-0213
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/13/2022 | ANY | FIRE | REVIEW | Active | |
| 10/13/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/13/2022 | ANY | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Active | |
| 10/13/2022 | ANY | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Active | |
| 10/21/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Wildcat Inn Housing - Fencing Development Package (2nd Review) DP22-0213 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 21, 2022 DUE DATE: November 03, 2022 COMMENT: 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 August 03, 2023. 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 1. This comment was not addressed. The use shown under the Property Summary still shows ‘TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UNIT” . If the use is Shelter Care list it as such and provide the applicable Use Specific Standards per UDC TABLE 4.8-4. Also revise General Note 3 to reflect the correct use. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The use listed under Property Summary is not a use classified in the UDC, clarify what the use is? 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. Jennifer Peel-Davis does not review for the same requirements as Zoning . Provide the requested dimensions. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As the proposed fence along the east side of the ramada appears to push the vehicle parking to the east, provide a parking space depth dimension and a PAAL width dimension that demonstrate that the UDC requirements are maintained. 3. This comment was not addressed the parking space is still shown on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Cleary demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met for the northern most parking space located east of the ramada. 4. This comment was not addressed correctly. Oracle’s ADT is 1,000 or greater and Elms is over 140 but less than 1,000. Zoning recommends that you demonstrate that the requirement of UDC Article 6.6.2.I.1 is met. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Keynote 1 calls out an 8’-0” high fence and it does not appear that the fence is meeting street perimeter yard setbacks in several locations clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 6.6.2.I.1 are met. If the proposed fence does not meet this requirement a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1 and provide street setback dimensions on the plan. As Oracle Rd is designated as an Arterial Gateway on the COT MS&R Map all street perimeter yard setbacks are considered developing area setbacks. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street setback information listed under Property Summary are not correct, see comment 7. 6. Provide written documentation from Real Estate. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – As the proposed fence along Elm & 13th is located within the right-of-way some type of easement maybe required. Contact COT Real Estate. 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 |