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-0724-00220
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/28/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 01/16/2025 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-0724-00220 • 2308 S CRAYCROFT RD 1. Include the following Paving Notes: • A Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit shall be obtained from the city of Tucson Department of Transportation and Mobility (DTM), prior to any work within the public right-of-way. • All construction activity and test methods shall be in conformance with Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Standard Specifications for Public Improvements (SSPI) 2015 Edition or current edition. 2. Revise plan to indicate that proposed driveway apron and sidewalk within the public rights-of-way will be constructed in compliance with PAG standard details 206 and 200. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 02/28/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Provide approval from Environmental Services (ES) for the proposed waste collection scenario. Contact Andy Vera at andy.vera@tucsonaz.gov. Otherwise, ES will be added to the next review cycle but this may delay the review. 2. Should you choose not to utilize a surveyor for the design of this project, please then provide relative elevations to an existing point on site that will then become the benchmark for construction. 3. Provide flow arrows showing how drainage will enter water harvesting areas. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/18/2025 | 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 #2 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. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. Add this general note: Any landscape in the future SVTs will be removed at the owner’s expense should DTM require it. 2. The half diamond tree planters are not consistent in size throughout the plan set. The architectural plans show a dimension of approximately 14’ width at the property line side and the landscape plan indicates that dimension as approximately 5’. The architectural plans also callout the curb cuts in different locations. Coordinate the linework and leader callouts to be identical on all plans within the development package. 3. Coordinate with the architect and provide spot elevations at curb cut inlets and outlets and a few spot elevations at the bottom of the depressed landscape areas. Add any contouring necessary to depict the flow direction and the shape of the depressed landscape areas. 4. Update landscape note number 5 on sheet L-1 that refers to the civil grading plan for contouring and spot elevations for construction. It appears that you are working with an architect, not with a civil engineer. Refer to the architectural plans for the above-mentioned contours and spot elevations. Make sure the information is identical on both the architectural plans and the landscape plans. 5. The landscape border table calls out an interior landscape border at the west property line with a 30” vegetative screen and a 36” wall. If this is not the intent, then remove the screening description in the table. 6. Update the trees provided within the landscape border table to match what is on the plan. (3) trees provided in the street landscape border. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 02/06/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: All Models Cars & Trucks Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0724-00220 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 6, 2025 DUE DATE: February 7, 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. 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. 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. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 4. This comment was not addressed. Under “PROJECT INFORMAION” “NEW OFFICE BUILDING” & “BUILDING CODE REVIEW” sheet 2 you still list building coverage and total site coverage. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove all references to coverage as it is not applicable for this use in the C-2 Zone, UDC Table 6.3-4.A. 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. b. Clarify what the “5 FT PAAL” is. Per UDC Article 7.4.6 there is no such Parking Area Access Lane (PALL). 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. 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. 10. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a mounting height for the accessible sign. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide an accessible vehicle parking space sign 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. 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. 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. 16. This comment was not addressed correctly. The plan on sheet 2 still has a reverence to “ZERO BUIDLING SETBACK” along the south property line which is not correct. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The setback dimensions show for the south and west property lines are not correct. Review UDC Table 6.3-4.A, C-2 zone, Nonres Use to a Res Zone and provided the correct required setbacks. 17. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.2 are met for all sidewalks shown on the plan. 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 Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@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. |