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-0724-00220
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 09/22/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-0724-00220 2308 S CRAYCROFT RD Site Engineering Comments are as follows: 1. Please provide documentation of approval from Andy Vera of Environmental Services for the proposed trash collection scenario. 2. The flow arrows as provided on the plan set do not coincide with the elevations provided. Please review and revise as necessary. As proposed, the site drainage flows away from the water harvesting areas. 3. Previous comment not addressed: “5. Clarify the new impervious area/new site coverage calculations. If 2,790 square feet of additional pavement are proposed, please show that the depressed landscape areas have the capacity to retain 116 cubic feet of runoff.” a. Provide details for the depressed landscape areas that include dimensions and volumes. See Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention manual section 2. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf Ryan Insalaco Engineering Associate ryan.insalaco@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 09/26/2025 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CAR SALES CENTER PLACED ON AN EXISTING SMALL VACANT PARCEL ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0724-00220 ADDRESS: 2308 S CRAYCROFT RD ZONING: C-2 COMMERCIAL ZONE REVIEW #3 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 Landscape/NPPO Review Section comments are addressed. NEW SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. The landscape plans have not been approved per the statement made in the response to comments. The NPPO Exception was approved on 9/10/24. Make sure all comments found on TDC Online due dated 9/6/24 and 2/7/25 for site landscape are fully addressed. 2. The tree planting triangles are still shown at different sizes throughout the plan set. They are to be a minimum of 34 square feet in area at the inside of the curbing. On sheet L-1 the planting triangle is just over 5 square feet using the 20-scale provided on sheet L-1. On sheet ABP-1 the triangle is just over 5 square feet using the 10-scale provided on sheet ABP-1. On sheet SPE-2 the triangle is approximately 38 square feet using the 20-scale provided on sheet SPE-2. The triangle on sheet SPE-2 meets the standard. Coordinate the plan set. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 10/06/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: All Models Cars & Trucks Development Package (3rd Review) TD-DEV-0724-00220 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 6, 2025 DUE DATE: September 22, 2025 COMMENTS: 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 August 8, 2025. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Sheet 7 & 8 do not have a page number and total number of pages, sheet 9 – do not have the correct page number and total number of pages. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – The page number on sheet 2 is not correct, no page number and total number of pages were provided on sheet 3, the page numbers and total number of pages provided on sheet 4-6 are not correct and no page number and total number of pages was provided on sheet 7. Follow up comment: There are now 13 sheets indicated in the Index to Drawings; however, 12 sheets are included in this Development Package. Correct the number of sheets and Index to Drawings to match for consistency. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. No case number was provided on sheet 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0724-00220, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Follow up comment: Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0724-00220, on sheet 7 of 13. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 3. This comment was not addressed correctly. The existing use should be listed as Parking and the proposed use should be listed as Vehicle Rental and Sales, subject to Use Specific Standards. The “ADMINISTRATE & PROFESSIONS OFFICE” & “MINOR SERVICE & REPAIR” are accessory uses to a vehicle rental and sales use and do not need to be listed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Provide a general note identifying the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. The use listed under ‘PROJEC DECRIPTION & INFORMATION” is not correct and the appliable Use Specific Standards were not provided, see UDC Table 4.8-4. Follow up comment: List the Use Specific Standard 4.9.9.G.1 & .2 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. 5. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - Sheet 1 under “ZONING INFORMATION’ you list “R-1 ZONING : 0.011 % OR 3.32 SF”. Clearly show this R-1 zoned area on the plan. 6. This comment was not fully addressed, see comments below. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area. a. Fully dimension the back-up spur show at the west end of the southern vehicle use area. 7. This comment was not addressed. The requirement has nothing to do with hours of operation. The required turn around area is required. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – There is a “SECURTY GATE AND FENCE” shown on the plan that runs along Craycroft Rd. Clearly demonstrate that a vehicle attempting to access the site can turn around and drive out on to Craycroft without backing into the right-of- way if the gate is closed. All maneuvering must be on site. 8. This comment was not addressed correctly. The vehicle parking calculation shows “30,043 SF LOT DIV BY 10,000 SF = 5 SPACES REQ’D” 5 space is not correct and should be 3. The “TOTAL REQ’S: 6 SPACES” is not correct and should be 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The required number of vehicle parking spaces is not correct. Review UDC Article 7.4.3.G and provide the correct required number. Follow up comment: The vehicle parking calculation shows “765 DIV BY 300 = 3 SPACES REQ’D” 3 space is not correct and should be 2. The correct calculation is 765 DIV 400. The “30,043 SF LOT DIV BY 10,000 SF = 3 SPACES REQ’D” has been removed and should be included in the parking calculations. A total of 5 vehicle parking spaces. 9. This comment was not addressed correctly. The wheel stop location dimension shown is not correct, Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and provide a correct dimension. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a standard & accessible vehicle parking space detail. 11. This comment was not addressed correctly. The ADA space requirement is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Table 1106.1 when only 16 parking spaces are provided 1 accessible space is required and it shall be van accessible, IBC Section 1106.5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number of van accessible parking spaces required and provided. 12. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 1 sheet 4 shows a wheel stop located within the accessible parking space access aisle. Clearly demonstrate that a person in a wheelchair can access the required sidewalk. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Just south of the accessible parking spaces, sheet 2 there is a note stating “NEW ASPHALT RAMP TO SPCES.” Clearly show the proposed ramp and demonstrate that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.5, Access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve. Follow up comment: Clearly show the proposed ramp and demonstrate that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.5, Access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve. 14. This comment was not addressed correctly. The calculation shall include the number required and the number provided. If the number long-term space “3” shown on the plan is the number required it is not correct. 758 SF divided by 12,000 SF = 0.063 or 1 space. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Rental and Sales the Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a short- and long-term bicycle parking space calculation that provides the number required and provided. 15. This comment was not addressed. Detail 3 sheet 3 does not address UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.b, .e, .g, 7.4.9.B.2.f, and 7.4.9.D. Also, the detail references “1-LONG TERM SPCE PAD & 2-BIKE SPC” but the layout on the plan on sheet 2 calls out “BICYLE PARKING: 2-SHORT & 2-LONG TERM SPCS” but the layout appears to show 6 short-terms space. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for both short- and long-term bicycle parking that clearly shows how all requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9 are met. Follow up comment: Indicate the short-term bicycle spaces required on Sheet 2. Follow up comment: Sheet 2 notes “LONG TERM SPCS: NOT REQUIRED “is not correct. For Long-term bicycle parking 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. 18. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning was not able to find the required note. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also, provide a general note stating all signage requires separate permits. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised 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. |
||
| 09/09/2025 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | ROW permit required prior to working in the ROW |