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: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Permit Number - DP22-0285
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/03/2022 | Commercial Plumbing | NOT REQUIRED | |||
| 11/10/2022 | NPPO | NOT REQUIRED | Existing development | ||
| 11/10/2022 | Site Landscape | NOT REQUIRED | Fuel tank only | ||
| 11/03/2022 | Site Zoning | NOT REQUIRED | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Mexican Fast Food – Drive Thru Development Package (2nd Review) DP22-0185 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 23, 2022 DUE DATE: October 05, 2022 COMMENTS: 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 July 10, 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. Zoning was not able to find a note that identified the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC or the applicable use specific standards for a food service use. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 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. 2-06.4.9 - 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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The ‘17’-9”’ PAAL width dimension shown from the southwest corner of the does not meet the minimum 24’ requirement. 3. This comment was not fully addressed provide the number of required & provided van accessible spaces. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per the 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 the required number of accessible vehicle parking space is based on the number of provided vehicle parking spaces. Based on the 26 provided spaces shown on the and 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 the required number of accessible parking spaces is 2, one being van accessible. Revise the “HANDICAPPED PARKING” calculation to show the correct number of spaces and include the required and provided number of van accessible spaces. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide dimensions on the accessible spaces and access aisle. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a detail for both a standard, 90 degree and angled, and the accessible parking spaces. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a –Based on the addition of bollards along the south side of the angled accessible parking space demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met. 6. This comment was not addressed. The striped area shown between the proposed drive-through and the angled parking and along the west side of the apartment are required to be sidewalk that meets the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 & 4.3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – The only place that the striped area called out under keynote 20 can be used is where a pedestrian circulation crosses a PAAL or access lane. All other pedestrian circulation is required to be a minimum 4’-0” wide sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use areas. 7. This comment was not addressed. The only sidewalk shown that connects to Clark is a 3’-0” wide sidewalk which does not meet the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.3.A and the only thing shown connecting to Ajo is a striped area. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that there is a sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk along both ROW’s. 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 |
||
| 11/15/2022 | CDRC Post Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | DP is void, do not issue |