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 REVIEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1122-00012
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 01/04/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2623.11’) is less than 12” below the first floor elevation (2623.50’). Provide a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. | ||
| 01/04/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Include the cut/fill quantities on the plans for the next submittal 2. The grading notes mention a Geotech report, please include the report in the next submittal along with adding the contact information of the firm that did the report on the cover sheet. 3. Show a complete pedestrian circulation path including out to Craycroft Rd from the proposed building. 4. Show the vehicle maneuverability for the trash service vehicle to demonstrate there is adequate room to service the trash bins in proposed location. 5. The trash enclosure shown in the detail on the plans does not match Technical Standards Manual section 8-01. A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) approved by Environmental Services (ES) will be required. 6. A barrier will be required in between the southeastern parking spaces and the detention basin to prevent vehicles from encroaching into the basin. (Wheel stops, vertical curbing with curb cuts, bollards, etc.) 7. Demonstrate how this site is maximizing water harvesting, the landscaping along both Craycroft Rd and Golf Links Rd could benefit from a few more curb cuts as you move both north and east from the intersection of the two roads where the landscaping has several curb cuts for water harvesting. 8. The grading sheet has a callout for 6” depressed landscaped area for water harvesting. The standard is 6’9 inches, if you are going with the minimum, make sure it is clear that the 6 inches accounts for the ground cover and is measured from the top of the ground cover and not from the finished grade. This can be accomplished with either note or detail or both. 9. Provide complete discussion, calculations, tables, and exhibits to establish accomplishment of first flush requirements. Include an exhibit comparable to Figure 2.1 in the Retention/Detention Manual that shows undisturbed area, disturbed area, impervious surfaces, non-contributing basins with landscape, stormwater harvesting basins including first flush, watershed #, stormwater harvesting basin #, and flow direction. Also include both tables 2.2 and 2.3 in the same section of the Retention/Detention Manual to demonstrate required/achieve retention volumes. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov | ||
| 01/04/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Circle K – Golf Links & Craycroft Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-1122-00012 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 4, 2023 DUE DATE: January 10, 2023 Th3 comments below were not addressed. Provide a detail response letter with your next submittal. 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 October 31, 2023. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – Except for the aerial photo shown on sheet 3, clarify what the difference is between sheets 2 & 3 are and why do we need this information twice. 2. 2-06.2.4 – The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. That said sheets 15 & 16 will not be reviewed during the development package review and will require a separate permit, typically done under the building plan review. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.2.4 – Remove all demolition information from the plans as demolition requires separate permits. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 4. COMMENT: 2-06.3.1 – Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval electronically applied stamp. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Sheet 2 & 3 remove the reference to site coverage as it is not applicable. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1122-00012, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 – It does not appear that the location map is at the three inch equals one-mile scale. 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 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – Revise Zoning & Land Use Note 1 to state “EXISTING ZONING IS C-2 & P, PROPOSED ZONING IS C-2. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – List rezoning case number, C9-22-05, adjacent to the title block on sheets and provide the rezoning conditions on the plan. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Restaurant is not a use classified in the UDC. Revise Zoning & Land Use Note 3 to show the existing use as “FOOD SERVICE & GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES”. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As Golf Links Rd is designated a Gateway Route on the COT MS&R map revise Zoning & Land Use Note 7 to include UDC Article 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIFOR ZONE (GCZ). 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. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of three (3) parcels, 131-06-031B, 131-11-378A & 131-06-034A, a lot combination is require. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo request form with your next submittal. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number of Van accessible spaces required & provided, review 2018 IBC Section 1106. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As the proposed accessible signs will be located in a pedestrian way the mounted height shall be 84” to the bottom of the lowest sign. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Sheet 7 Construction Note 8 states “INSTALL BIKE RACK PER ARCHITECT’S DETAILS” and should reference the details provided in the DP. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Zoning was not able to find the long-term bicycle parking on the site plan. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As you are proposing access across this site to the parcel to the north a recorded easement or agreement is required. Zoning acknowledges that an Unsigned agreement was provide but until this document has been fully executed and recorded Zoning cannot approve this plan. If the DP review gets to the point where this is the only comment Zoning may put the requirement off to the Building C of O so that the DP can be approved. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under “ZONING INFORMATION” are not correct. Based on the definition of Established Area Setbacks any project that boarders on a street designated as a major street on the COT MS&R map is considered developing area for the purpose of street perimeter yard setbacks, see UDC Article 11.4.6. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5C-1 and provide the correct setbacks. Also, provide a setback dimension from the proposed building to the back of existing or future curb, whichever is applicable, for both Craycroft & Golf Links. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the proposed height of the building within the footprint. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q - The allowed building height shown under “ZONING INFORMATION” is not correct. Review UDC Table 6.3-4.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, and provide the correct allowed height in the C-2 Zone. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.A & 7-01.4.A a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 & 7-01.4.3, is required to connect the building to the sidewalks along both streets. Show the required sidewalk out to the sidewalk along Craycroft. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 24. 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. And 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: Revised development package |
||
| 01/03/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/04/2023 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/04/2023 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Circle K – Golf Links & Craycroft Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-1122-00012 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 4, 2023 DUE DATE: January 10, 2023 Th3 comments below were not addressed. Provide a detail response letter with your next submittal. 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 October 31, 2023. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – Except for the aerial photo shown on sheet 3, clarify what the difference is between sheets 2 & 3 are and why do we need this information twice. 2. 2-06.2.4 – The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. That said sheets 15 & 16 will not be reviewed during the development package review and will require a separate permit, typically done under the building plan review. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.2.4 – Remove all demolition information from the plans as demolition requires separate permits. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 4. COMMENT: 2-06.3.1 – Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval electronically applied stamp. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Sheet 2 & 3 remove the reference to site coverage as it is not applicable. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1122-00012, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 – It does not appear that the location map is at the three inch equals one-mile scale. 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 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – Revise Zoning & Land Use Note 1 to state “EXISTING ZONING IS C-2 & P, PROPOSED ZONING IS C-2. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – List rezoning case number, C9-22-05, adjacent to the title block on sheets and provide the rezoning conditions on the plan. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Restaurant is not a use classified in the UDC. Revise Zoning & Land Use Note 3 to show the existing use as “FOOD SERVICE & GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES”. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As Golf Links Rd is designated a Gateway Route on the COT MS&R map revise Zoning & Land Use Note 7 to include UDC Article 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIFOR ZONE (GCZ). 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. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of three (3) parcels, 131-06-031B, 131-11-378A & 131-06-034A, a lot combination is require. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo request form with your next submittal. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number of Van accessible spaces required & provided, review 2018 IBC Section 1106. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As the proposed accessible signs will be located in a pedestrian way the mounted height shall be 84” to the bottom of the lowest sign. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Sheet 7 Construction Note 8 states “INSTALL BIKE RACK PER ARCHITECT’S DETAILS” and should reference the details provided in the DP. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Zoning was not able to find the long-term bicycle parking on the site plan. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As you are proposing access across this site to the parcel to the north a recorded easement or agreement is required. Zoning acknowledges that an Unsigned agreement was provide but until this document has been fully executed and recorded Zoning cannot approve this plan. If the DP review gets to the point where this is the only comment Zoning may put the requirement off to the Building C of O so that the DP can be approved. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under “ZONING INFORMATION” are not correct. Based on the definition of Established Area Setbacks any project that boarders on a street designated as a major street on the COT MS&R map is considered developing area for the purpose of street perimeter yard setbacks, see UDC Article 11.4.6. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5C-1 and provide the correct setbacks. Also, provide a setback dimension from the proposed building to the back of existing or future curb, whichever is applicable, for both Craycroft & Golf Links. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the proposed height of the building within the footprint. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q - The allowed building height shown under “ZONING INFORMATION” is not correct. Review UDC Table 6.3-4.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, and provide the correct allowed height in the C-2 Zone. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.A & 7-01.4.A a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 & 7-01.4.3, is required to connect the building to the sidewalks along both streets. Show the required sidewalk out to the sidewalk along Craycroft. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 24. 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. And 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: Revised development package |
||
| 01/04/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | TD-DEV-1122-00012 5501 E. Golf Links Rd. Comments: 1. New Curb Returns on either Craycroft Rd. or Golf Links Rd. shall have a minimum radius of 25 Ft. 2. New Curb Returns are to be constructed with New Concrete Curb per P.A.G. Standard 209. (Match existing or transition per P.A.G. Standard 210.) 3. New concrete Curb Access Ramps per P.A.G. Standard 207 are required at each curb return. 4. Closing of existing driveway entrances. Close with P.A.G. standard 209 concrete curb & P.A.G. standard 200 concrete Sidewalk. (Match existing width unless it is less than 4 Ft wide.) 5. The cross-slope of the crosswalk through the new entrances must be 2% or less. 6. Where adjoining sidewalk from the properties on site circulation path, ties to sidewalk along the ROW frontage, a 60” X 60” ADA landing is required. Landings shall be 60” X 60” and not to exceed a 2% cross slope in all directions. David Stiffey DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |