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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Permit Number - DP22-0167
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2022 | Fire New Construction | APPROVED | |||
| 11/23/2022 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 11/17/2022 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Although the WaPro WaStop can be used in sewers, the product is not listed by a third party certification agency as complying with referenced standards (e.g. IAPMO, UL, ICC-ES, etc.). You might consider Clean-Check by Rectorseal (https://rectorseal.com/clean-check-extendable-backwater-valve-group/) or similar backwater valves by Canplas, Sioux Chief, Mainline, Spears, or Oatey. Reference: Section 303.4, IPC 2018. [Initial comment: Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.] | ||
| 11/23/2022 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please see zoning comments. | ||
| 11/18/2022 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: Salad and Go ACTIVITY NO: DP22-0167 v2 Address: 7980 E Speedway Blvd Zoning: C-1/C-2 Existing Use: vacant pad Proposed Use: Fast food TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 18, 2022 DUE DATE: November 13, 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. An engineer is not the appropriate professional to prepare landscape and irrigation plans. None of the previous comments were adequately addressed. 1. Demonstrate how water harvesting is maximized. UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.0.0. and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening. Demonstrate how water harvesting is being maximized. 2. If using d.g. at 2” depth, make sure that the water harvesting basins are 8” deep to allow for d.g. depth. Make sure that grading, water harvesting and landscape plans match, as well as details. 3. The landscape, water harvesting, and grading plans must match. 4. Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on grading and water harvesting plans. 5. The detail provided is a stock detail, not reflective of the actual site. There is not enough information. - Please add a detail to show depressed landscape areas or indicate with notes. 6. The required landscape border landscape areas are incorrect. A 10’ street landscape border is required adjacent to all public streets. 7. Acacia willi is not a canopy tree, select another tree that will maximize shade on the asphalt 8. Please label the existing and future rights of way for all public streets, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 9. Please label the separate irrigation meter “irrigation only”. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.6.1.A.1. 10. Identify the type of irrigation controller with soil moisture gauge, tensiometer, weather station and/or evaportranspiration data. UDC Tech Standards 4-01.4.A. 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 |
||
| 11/21/2022 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Salad & Go – 7980 E Speedway Blvd Development Package (2nd Review) DP22-0167 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 21, 2022 DUE DATE: November 11, 2022 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 August 17, 2023. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS This comment was not fully addressed. The email address was not provided for the primary property and the email address and phone number was not provided for the developer. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, and the email addresses, and phone number developer of the project. This comment was not fully addressed. The required information was not provided on sheet 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0167, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. This comment was not fully addressed. Lable the section corners on the location map. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C – Label; the section, township, and range; section corners: and the scale on the location map. 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 This comment was not addressed. Per UDC TABLE 4.8-4: the Use Specific Standards for Food Service in the C-1 zone are 4.9.4.M.1 & 5 and 4.9.13.O. Not 4.8-4 as shown on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The Use Specific Standards listed under General Note 2 are not correct. Review UDC TABLE 4.8-4: PERMITTED USES - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONES, C-1 Zone, Food Service: Excluding Soup Kitchens and provide the correct standards. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c – Provide a building expansion calculation on the plan. This comment was not addressed. For Zoning purposes building A & B are considered part of the overall site as they cannot operate independently from the rest of the site, i.e., vehicle access and parking. All calculations shall include the entire site. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. This includes vehicle, bicycle parking etc. 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. This comment was not addressed. Based on Pima County Assessor’s records this parcel is part of the overall parcel. Provide recorded documents that have been approved by COT PDSD that created the parcel that you claim is a parcel created by a plat. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – It appears that some type of lot split/subdivision is proposed. As the original parcel was created via a final plat the number of divisions has exceeded the allowed per UDC Article 11.4.20 definition of Subdivision C. Any property whose boundaries are fixed by a recorded plat, which is divided into more than two parts. A block plat will be required and must be submitted and approved prior to approval of this DP. This comment was not addressed, see comment 6 above. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct and should include the entire site, see comment 12. Also, the vehicle parking requirement does not exclude coolers or restrooms, vehicle parking is based on Gross Floor Area for this use, see UDC Article 7.4.3.F.4. If you are going to use the shopping center calculation provide a break down of all uses and clearly demonstrate on the plan that the definition of a shopping center is met, see UDC Article 11.3.9.C.3. This comment was not addressed, see comment 6 above. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number accessible vehicle parking space, required & provided for the entire site, along with the number of required & provided van accessible spaces for the entire site, see comment 12. The comment was not addressed correctly. The proposed rack does not meet the requirements for a long-term bicycle, see UDC Article 7.4.9.D. Also, per UDC Article 7.4.8.B.1.a.(1) No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Review UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service and revise the calculation. The number provide is not correct per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. This comment was not addressed. As existing curb & sidewalk are not at future location show the future curb and sidewalk on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed show the future curb and sidewalk based on the COT MS&R Plan street cross sections. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As s Speedway Blvd is designated as an Arterial on the COT MS&R Map based on the definition of Established Area Setback, see UDC Article 11.4.6, this site does not qualify for established area setbacks and is required to meet the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1. Once the future curb location is shown provide a developing area street perimeter yard setback from the back of future curb to the building. The “20’-0” FRONT SETBACK” shown on the plan is not correct. Zoning acknowledges that stripped pedestrian areas were provided on the plan to accommodate the required accessible route. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.2.A Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said, the stripped area shown along the north and east side of the landscape island shown west of the proposed building is required to be a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 & 7-01.4.3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B & 7-01.4.1 a accessible sidewalk/pedestrian circulation is required from the proposed building to the buildings to the south. The provided survey does not provide enough information. Also, you state in the comment response that “no ramp indicated” but there is a Keynote 5 indicating that there is an existing accessible curb ramp. Clarify what you are proposing. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 406 are met to include but not limited to, slopes width, etc., are met for the existing ramp shown north of the proposed accessible parking space. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a width dimension for the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R - The proposed “3.87’” wide sidewalk running out to Speedway Blvd does not meet the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.3.A and will need to be widened. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R - As you have elected to use the existing accessible access lane/sidewalk & ramp, shown at the northwest corner of Building C, for the required accessible route, clearly demonstrate that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 406 & TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A are met. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
||
| 11/07/2022 | CDRC Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/17/2022 | CDRC Review Coordinator | REVIEW COMPLETED |