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 NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0125-00010
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/20/2025 | NPPO Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 02/20/2025 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | APPROVED | All DTM comments have been reviewed and addressed. | ||
| 02/26/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 02/20/2025 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Header curb with thickened edge required on west edge of new AC paving, minimum. | ||
| 02/24/2025 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Ramiro Olivarez PDSD: Zoning Review PROJECT: Minor Subdivision DP - 3934 E ELMWOOD ST | R-3 Zone Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0125-00010 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 24, 2025 DUE DATE: March 12, 2025 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 1. A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designed. 2. A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein. 3. Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule or as determined on an hourly rate. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: The proposed name of the project, or if there is no name, the proposed tenant’s name. A brief legal description is to be provided. The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Previous Comment: Include any related Design Development Option case numbers as noted by the Standard above. See related DDO comment below. Follow up Comment: List the existing approved DDO activity number: DDO-24-59. If approved, list the new DDO activity numbers as noted by the Standard above. GENERAL NOTES The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 5. Percentage of gross floor area, land area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included. Comment: Under site notes/zoning/land use notes remove comment 5 and adjust the note numbers for consistency. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: 2. All existing easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Previous Comment: The pedestrian circulation sidewalk is not located within the 24’ ingress/egress easement. Relocate the sidewalk within the 24’ ingress/egress easement. Follow up comment: Zoning acknowledges that a TSMR for the above comment has been applied for. Until the TSMR has been approved, zoning will not be able to approve this Development Package. 3. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Comment: Include the information as noted by the Standard above. Follow up comment: List the recordation sequence number and or the docket and page number for the 24 ft ingress/egress and public & private utility easement. Follow up comment: Header curb with thickened edge required on west edge of new AC paving, minimum. INFORMATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 5. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. Comment: Provide the easement recordation information as noted by the Standard above. Follow up comment: List the recordation sequence number and or the docket and page number for the 24 ft ingress/egress and public & private utility easement. 7. Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). Previous Comment: A Design Development Option will be required for the north and south building setbacks. (Two DDO’s total for lot 2) In the R-3 zone, residential use adjacent to residential zone the setbacks are 6’ or 2/3 (H) of the wall, whichever is greater. Per the model plan uploaded, the height of the walls measured from design grade to the top of the parapet is 12’6”. 2/3 of 12’6” = 8.33-foot minimum setback. For LOT 2, the north and south building setbacks depicted are 6’8” and does not comply with the 8.33-foot minimum setback. Per UDC 6.3-2.A, the minimum perimeter yard setback is the greater of 6’-0” or 2/3 (H) height of the exterior wall. The structure encroaches into the required perimeter yards and will require the approval of a Design Development Option (DDO) before zoning can approve this permit. The below paperwork can be filled out and submitted with the next submission. DDO application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/planning-amp-zoning/ddo_for_setback_and_height_udc.pdf For more information about the DDO process contact Mark Castro at mark.castro@tucsonaz.gov or Georgia Pennington at Georgia.Pennington@tucsonaz.gov Previous Comment: A Design Development Option will be required for the north and south building setbacks. (Two DDO’s total for lot 3) In the R-3 zone, residential use adjacent to residential zone the setbacks are 6’ or 2/3 (H) of the wall, whichever is greater. Per the model plan uploaded, the height of the walls measured from design grade to the top of the parapet is 12’6”. 2/3 of 12’6” = 8.33-foot minimum setback. For LOT 3, the north building setback depicted is 6’8” and south building setback depicted is 6’9” and does not comply with the 8.33-foot minimum setback. Per UDC 6.3-2.A, the minimum perimeter yard setback is the greater of 6’-0” or 2/3 (H) height of the exterior wall. The structure encroaches into the required perimeter yards and will require the approval of a Design Development Option (DDO) before zoning can approve this permit. The below paperwork can be filled out and submitted with the next submission. DDO application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/planning-amp-zoning/ddo_for_setback_and_height_udc.pdf For more information about the DDO process contact Mark Castro at mark.castro@tucsonaz.gov or Georgia Pennington at Georgia.Pennington@tucsonaz.gov Follow up Comment to DDO’s: Zoning acknowledges that DDO’s for the above comments have been applied for. Until the DDO’s have been approved, zoning will not be able to approve this Development Package. 8. Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. Previous Comment: The sidewalk should be located within the 24' ingress/egress easement and not on the individual lots. Correct the sidewalk to not be within the 24’ ingress/egress easement. Follow up Comment: Zoning acknowledges that a TSMR for the above comment has been applied for. Until the TSMR has been approved, zoning will not be able to approve this Development Package. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A corrected development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Ramiro Olivarez at Ramiro.Olivarez@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/20/2025 | Zoning Modifications - DDO Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | The DDO application has been accepted for processing. Please allow 4-6 weeks for this process. If the application is approved, please include with your required comment response letter a copy of the DDO decision letter. If you have questions, please email Mark.Castro@tucsonaz.gov | ||
| 02/19/2025 | TSMR/PDMR - Engineering Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 02/26/2025 | TSMR/PDMR - Zoning Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED |