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.3
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0723-00336
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/27/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | APPROVED | |||
| 01/24/2024 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 01/24/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Tucson codes and ordinances can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/overview 1. Provide a sidewalk from the proposed building out to the sidewalk within the right-of-way along Prince. This required sidewalk out to the street shall meet TSM Sections 7-01.4.2, 4.3. and is only allowed to be striped asphalt where the pedestrian cross and access lane or PAAL. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A is met. Lianne Evans lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/29/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 340 E. Prince Rd. Development Package (3rd Review) TD-DEV-0723-00336 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 29, 2023 DUE DATE: January 25, 2024 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 July 30, 2024. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 1. This comment was not completely addressed. Remove the “12.0’ (MIN.) dimension from the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The proposed 12.0’ wide PAAL shown east of the proposed building does not meet the minimum 24’ required per UDC Figure 7.4.6-A and Table 7.4.6-1. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required to reduce the PAAL width. 2. This comment was not addressed correctly. The calculation does not provided the number required or provided vehicle parking spaces. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Review UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Sales and provide the correct calculation. The calculation shall include the number required and provided for both standard and accessible vehicle parking spaces. 3. This comment was not addressed correctly. The calculation does not provided the number of provided short-term bicycle parking space. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking space calculation shall include the number required and provided for both the short- & long-term bicycle parking spaces. 4. This comment was not addressed. 7.4.9.B.1.e was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The provided short-term bicycle parking detail, sheet C07 does not address the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d , .e, 7.4.9.B.2.f & .g. 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. Remove the reference to “TABLE 5.9.7 A MINIMUM OF 14 FEET BACK OF CURB” as it is not applicable to this site. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The Perimeter Yard Setback listed under Site Date is not correct. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Codes-and-Plans/Zoning-Code, and provide the correct street permit yard setback. 6. This comments was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The Height and Setback listed un under Site Date is not correct. There is no “TABLE 5.9.7” in the UDC. If you are referencing UDC Article 5.9.7 the setbacks listed only apply if this site were located in the Drachman School Overlay Zone (DSO). 7. This comment was not addressed. Provide a sidewalk from the proposed building out to the sidewalk within the right-of-way along Prince. This required sidewalk out to the street shall meet TSM Sections 7-01.4.2, 4.3. and is only allowed to be striped asphalt where the pedestrian cross and access lane or PAAL. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A is met. 8. This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges that the accessible parking space and access aisle was relocated but there does not appear to be any accessible access to the sidewalk at the new location. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.5 the accessible ramp show on the detail is not allowed within the access aisle. 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 & detailed response letter. |