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.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0423-00209
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/02/2023 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 08/14/2023 | Site Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 08/10/2023 | Traffic Engineering Review | APPROVED | |||
| 08/09/2023 | TSMR/PDMR - Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 08/14/2023 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 08/14/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Add a note on the utility plan that a backwater valve will be required for the car wash building. [Initial comment: The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole, MH #4 (2622.6’) is higher than the first floor elevation of the car wash (2619.70’). Provide a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 2. The new 4” building sewer shows 99’ between cleanouts. The grading plan shows a 2621’ contour at the start of the building sewer and a 2617.37’ invert for a depth of about 3.6 feet. The maximum distance between cleanouts shall be 100-feet, measured along the developed pipe length from the upstream entrance of the cleanout. Reference: Section 708.1.1, IPC 2018. [Initial comment: Verify that Pima County Wastewater Reclamation will allow a 6” BCS to connect to an existing 12” PVC sewer with a wye fitting instead of constructing a new manhole.] |
||
| 08/11/2023 | External Reviewers - COT Environmental Services | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Hello, ES 1st submittal comments have still not been addressed: No enclosure detail provided. Include detail drawings of enclosure/s with dimensions. TSM 8-01.4.A & 8-01.5.2 Response: Depict the 14ft x 40ft clear approach in front of both enclosures. Refer to TSM 8- 01.5.3.B Please contact me with any questions regarding this review. Thanks, Andy Vera City of Tucson -Environmental Services Accounts Representative Supervisor (520) 837-3798 |
||
| 08/02/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Comments: 1. Please update the site water budget to reflect the Average Depth on the WHIA's from .5 to .67. 2. Screen back plants on the CRWH Plan for better readability. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at Matthew.Carlton@tucsonaz.gov or 520-837-4988 |
||
| 07/20/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Larry H. Miller Jeep Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0423-00209 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 19, 2023 DUE DATE: May 11, 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 April 17, 2024. 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. 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As it appears Zoning comments in regard to vehicle parking were not clear the following still apply: a. Vehicle display space do not count toward the number of spaces provided. Striping for vehicle display areas is not required. b. Remove the parking breakdown as there is nothing in the UDC that addresses display, storage/employee, customer or service parking for a vehicle sales and rental use. c. The required number of vehicle parking space for the show room area is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle, bicycle parking spaces, and EVSE spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the number required for the show room area should be 53. d. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11, Table 1106.1 the number of required accessible spaces is based on the number of “TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED”. Based on the “PARKING REQUIREMENTS” calculation which shows 297 vehicle parking spaces provided, the required number of accessible spaces is 7, 2 being van accessible. e. The “PARKING PROVIDED = 297” shown under the “PARKING REQUIREMENTS” does not match the “TOTAL 296 SPACES” shown under your parking breakdown. 2. The short-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Construction Material Sales, Furniture, Carpet, or Appliance Store; Heavy Equipment Sales; and Vehicle Rental and Sales, only 2 short-term spaces are required. The long-term calculation is not correct and should be based on gross floor area not just the vehicle service area. Per UDC Article COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Review UDC Table 7.4.8-1 and provide a short- & long-term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan that provides the ratio used and the number required and provided. 3. This comment was not addressed. The provided short-term bicycle parking detail does not address UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.a, & .f. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for both the required short- & long-term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B, .C & .D are met. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. The required setback shown for Pantano, “FUTURE SETBACK’ is not a future setback but based on the future property line location as determined by the adopted Major Streets and Routes Plan. Show the future property long Pantano and provide a setback dimension. The “PROVIDED” setbacks are not correct. If you are going to list the provided setback is should reflect the actual setback provided. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The perimeter yard setbacks listed on sheets 1 & 4 are not correct. Based on final plat Eastside Research/Commerce Center, Bk 37 Pg 19(2), there is a platted 30’-0” setback along 22nd street that takes precedence over UDC requirements. Clarify why there are “REQUIRED” & “FUTURE” perimeter yard requirements shown for 22nd & Pantano. Based on current code, amended on April 21, 2023, the required perimeter yard setback for Pantano is 10’ from existing of future property line, more restrictive of the two, and for Eastside Lp the minimum setback is 20’. The “PROVIDED” setbacks listed are not correct as the propose setbacks appear to exceed the listed provided setbacks. 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 |
||
| 07/06/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 08/08/2023 | TSMR/PDMR - Zoning | REVIEW COMPLETED |