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-0525-00137
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/17/2025 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 06/05/2025 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 06/09/2025 | Transportation Landscape Review Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 06/27/2025 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Will add TEP on next submittal at client's request. TEP review will restart once we send them the new plans for review. Thanks | ||
| 06/18/2025 | NPPO Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please see Site Landscape Comments for NPPO Waiver requirement. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA |
||
| 06/18/2025 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. The slopes on the concrete ramp do not match the required 2% away from the enclosure per Figure 3A of the TSM section 8-01.9.0. Revise as needed. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 06/18/2025 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DP FOR NEW RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0525-00137 ADDRESS: 7101 E 22ND ST ZONING: C-2 COMMERCIAL ZONE LAND USE: COMMERCIAL This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants, and water harvesting. Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all of the Site Landscape and NPPO Section review comments have been addressed. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. PRE-APPLICATION COMMENT: Per our conversation with the applicant in the official pre-application meeting on 3/13/25: Permission has been granted by DTM and David Marhefka, PLA to use 6.25 feet of the right of way for the required 10-foot street landscape border. With the formal submittal of the development package, please provide the written correspondence with DTM. 2. For redundant clarity and record keeping, provide a NPPO Waiver as part the next submittal. 3. Include size and color of decorative rock. 4. In general, any opportunity to depress a landscape area to receive rainfall only is great. Can leader callouts be added to areas that can be depressed slightly for rainfall catchment? Understandably, the planting area that includes the short-term bike racks may not be feasible to be depressed. Also, understandable that the additional depressed areas should not adversely affect the designed basins per the CRWH plan. 5. Can a few spot elevations from the civil grading plan be added to the CRWHP? Possibly at the top of the inlets and at the bottom of each end of the basins for quick reference to slope at the bottom of basin during inspection. 6. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0525-00137, adjacent to the title block on all site landscape sheets, per Administrative Manual 2-06.4.3 Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 06/20/2025 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Jeffrey W. Cassidy, Planner Planning & Development Services Department – Zoning Review Section PROJECT: TC-DEV-0525-00137 – Commercial – Chipotle Drive Thru 7101 E 22nd St. Tucson, AZ 85710 (C-2 Zoning) Development Package Review – 1st Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 20, 2025 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 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 May 15, 2026. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 1. COMMENT: Per the above standard, provide Name and Contact information for the Civil Engineer. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a re-subdivision are to be provided. On re-subdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; 2. COMMENT: Update Legal Description in to match County Legal Description: Longview Estates S150’ W150’ Lot 471. 2-06.4.3 - 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. 3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0525-00137, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 4. COMMENT: Per the recorded County Assessor Map, the north property line length is 150.03’ as opposed 150.07’. Update this and square footage information in General Notes, Sheet 1 of 12. 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 5. COMMENT: Per above standard, provide recorded subdivision name and number in lower right hand corner of each sheet. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 6. COMMENT: Per General Note #27, sheet 1 of 12, check expansion percentage of new building percentage. My calculations come out to -64% as opposed to the -56% depicted. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 7. COMMENT: Per the recorded County Assessor Map, the north property line length is 150.03’ as opposed 150.07’. Update this and square footage information in General Notes, Sheet 1 of 12. 2-06.4.8.C - 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. 8. COMMENT: Per 10-01.9.0, Figure 7, Confirm with Engineering Reviewer that the minimum curb return radii table, needs to be updates for both the west and south ingress/egress ways to meet standard. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation 2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections. Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC). 9. COMMENT: a) Per 10-01.9.0, Figure 7, Confirm with Engineering Reviewer that the minimum curb return radii table, needs to be updates for both the west and south ingress/egress ways to meet standard. b) Confirm with the Right of Way reviewer there isn’t a conflict with the location of western ingress-egress way with the ability for someone to leave the parking lot and not be conflict with a bus parked to pick up passengers at the bus stop. c) Both ingress-egress ways are not aligned with their respective PAAL’s. Confirm with the engineering reviewer this to be acceptable. Especially for western location where are cars queuing in the drive thru lane, trying to get in the que from the east, and others are just trying to use the location to enter or leave the parking lot. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 10. COMMENT: Consider shifting the six parking bays in the upper northeast portion of the site south 30” into the ‘middle’ landscape island making the landscape island 5’-0” (inside curb to inside curb) therefore providing clearance for the parked car closest to the trash dumpster door free from any potential conflict with an open door while the car is parked. 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 11. COMMENT: Per above standard, provide MS & R information on site plan. 2-06.4.9.R - 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. 12. COMMENT: Per 7-01.4.1.G, Confirm with Engineering Reviewer that sidewalks or crosswalks cannot cross any type of stacking areas for drive-through lanes; 13. COMMENT: Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next review based on responses to Zoning and other the PDSD reviewer comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Jeffrey Cassidy, (520) 837-4916 or Jeffrey.Cassidy@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
||
| 05/15/2025 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/28/2025 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 05/28/2025 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/28/2025 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/28/2025 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 06/05/2025 | Fire New Construction Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | The following items apply to the proposed project: 1. Kitchen hood fire suppression is required. 2. CO2 systems requires an operational plan from The City of Tucson Fire Department 3. Fire extinguishers shall comply with section 906 of the 2024 IFC. sal.erivezjr@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/19/2025 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/27/2025 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |