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-0723-00336
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2023 | Site Landscape | APPROVED | |||
| 12/11/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 11/08/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-0723-00336 (340 E PRINCE RD TUCSON, AZ 85705) 2nd Review Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter which states how all comments were addressed. Comments: 1. TSM 10-01.4.1.D -The max cross slope for a sidewalk crossed by a driveway is 2%. Show that the existing sidewalk satisfies this requirement or show that a new driveway apron per P. A. G. SD 206 will be built. Please call out the detail number in on plans. 2. Please clarify in the site plan that the existing sidewalk will remain by using a lighter color for the line work of existing infrastructure like curbs and sidewalks. Use a black line for any portions which will be rebuilt. Faffs Riederer Faffs.Riederer@tucsonaz.gov Abbreviations: City of Tucson Code (COTC), Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM), Technical Standards Manual (TSM), Street Design Guide (SDG), Pima Association of Governments Standard Details (P. A. G. SD), Access Management Guidelines (AMG), Major Streets and Routes Plan (MS&R). |
||
| 12/05/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Tucson codes and ordinances can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/overview The Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention manual can be found online at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf TD-DEV-0723-00336 1. The drainage report indicates that post-development peak storm water discharge is increased compared to pre-development discharge. The site is located in a critical basin and therefore post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year discharge from the site must be reduced by 15% as compared to the pre-development discharges. Provide PC-Hydro sheets that show the reduction in discharge from the proposed basin. Please contact Lianne Evans at lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov if you have any questions. 2. The pedestrian circulation path to the street frontage must meet standards in TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 and 4.3. Lianne Evans lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 11/15/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 340 E. Prince Rd. Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0723-00336 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 15, 2023 DUE DATE: December 6, 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 July 30, 2024. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not addressed correctly. The total number of pages shall include all sheets “12” and shall be provided on all sheets. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) on all sheets. 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. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a PAAL width from vehicle parking spaces located just north of the proposed building, north to the vehicle parking spaces to the north. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area. 3. 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. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of 7.4.6.H.1 are met for the following areas: a. Addressed. South of the retention basin. b. Addressed. Along the entrance access lane c. This comment was not addressed. To the east and west side of the propose building. 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. The calculation does not provided the number required or provide just the ratio used for the standard parking spaces. You show “VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE” is this required or provided. 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. 6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly delineate the required and provided vehicle parking spaces from the vehicle display spaces. For your information vehicle display spaces are not required to be striped. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate how parking vehicles will be prevented from extending beyond the property lines or damaging adjacent walls/fences, UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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). 12. This comment was not addressed. The required sidewalk out to the street shall meet TSM Sections 7-01.4.2, 4.3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A is met. 13. 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. |
||
| 11/04/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/06/2023 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED |