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.2
Permit Number - DP22-0241
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2023 | Site Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 03/30/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 03/28/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 6601 E Grant Rd Development Package (3rd Review) DP22-0241 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 28, 2023 DUE DATE: April 16, 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. 2-06.4.8 - 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. 1. Zoning will put a hold on the C of O on building permit TC-COM-0123-00550 until the recorded abandonment documents are provided to PDSD. 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. 2. This comment was not addressed correctly. The required number of short-term bicycle parking spaces required for food service is 3 and the required for retail is 2. 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. 3. This comment was not addressed correctly. As stated below the street perimeter yard setbacks for this site are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1. UDC Article 6.4.5.c.2 states “Within developing areas, the minimum required perimeter yard is determined by the type of building proposed and the projected average daily traffic (ADT) of the street and is required as follows: All Buildings Except Carports and Garages in Single-Family and Duplex Development, A minimum perimeter yard is required between a building and an adjacent street as determined in Table 6.4.5.C-I, except setbacks for carports and garages in single-family and duplex development , which are determined in Section 6.4.5.C.2.b, Carports and Garages in Single-Family and Duplex Development. The setback is based on the projected street ADT. Of the two or more setback distances listed in Table 6.4.5.C-I for each ADT range, the building setback which provides the greatest distance from the street is required. (See Illustration 6.4.5-D.)”. Based on the definition of established area, UDC Article 11.4.6, his site does not qualify for established area setbacks. Show the correct street perimeter yard setback on the plan. 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 |