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

Permit Number: DP22-0241
Parcel: 133165770

Address:
6601 E GRANT RD

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1

Permit Number - DP22-0241
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/22/2023 Commercial Plumbing APPROVED
03/02/2023 Site Landscape APPROVED
03/02/2023 CDRC Post Review Express PENDING ASSIGNMENT
02/27/2023 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT Tucson codes and ordinances can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/overview
The Stormwater Detention-Retention Manual can be found online at https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Flood%20Control/Rules%20and%20Procedures/Stormwater%20Detention-Retention/dssdr-manual-board-version-201511.pdf
With the City of Tucson edits at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes/Detention_Retention_Manual_Tech_Standards_Amemdments.pdf

1. Provide required first flush volume calculations. This can be done in an exhibit comparable to Figure 2.1 in the Stormwater 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.
2. Provide Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) for both vehicle entrances. The provided SVTs are not legible on the site plan.

Lianne Evans
lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov
520-837-5341
02/23/2023 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: 6601 E Grant Rd
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP22-0241

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 23, 2023

DUE DATE: March 03, 2023

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 16, 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 correctly. Retail is a use group not a use, clarify what retail use is proposed and provide the applicable Use Specific Standards for both the C-1 & C-2 Zone. Also provide the Use Specific Standards for food service in the C-1 & C-2 Zone. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The proposed use “COMMERCIAL” is a Use Group not a Use, provide the proposed use and if applicable any Use Specific Standards.

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.

2. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – There is an existing Electrical Easement shown running under the northwest corner of the proposed building. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the DP.

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.

3. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 when 62 parking spaces are provided, 3 accessible parking spaces are required, one (1) being van accessible. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The PARKING TABULATION shall include the number of required and provided accessible and van accessible vehicle parking spaces.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Based on the provided vehicle parking calculation you are proposing to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces by providing addition EV stations but per UDC Article 7.4.5.E.1 the number of required motor vehicle parking spaces may be reduced by including more EVSE than required in Table 7.4.11-1, you haven’t provide the required number of EV stations so you may not reduce using this exception.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Based on the provided vehicle parking calculation you are proposing to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces by providing addition bicycle parking spaces. The reduction is based on six non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long-term bicycle parking standards. Based on the bicycle parking calculation provided you are only providing 3 addition space. Plus, Zoning was not able to find any additions space on the plan. Until comment ## below is addressed The allowed reduction cannot be verified.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The short-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. The calculation shall show the number required and provide for both short- & long-term bicycle parking spaces Based on 6,457 sq ft of Food Service the required number of short-term is 3 & long-term is 2, and based on 1,265 sq ft of Retail the required number of short-term is 2 & long-term is 2.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The proposed location of the short-term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a, & .d.

9. This comment was not addressed correctly. Your understanding is not correct. As stated below, street perimeter yard setbacks for this site are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As the proposed height of the building was not provided the street perimeter yard setback requirement cannot be verified. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1 and provide the setback on the plan.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.Ross@tucsonaz.gov.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package