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: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP21-0086
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/22/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Craycroft Office Development Package (2nd Review) DP21-0086 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 22, 2021 DUE DATE: October 04, 2021 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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 April 05, 2022. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – The drawing index shows 6 pages but only 5 were submitted, clarify the difference. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – The total number of sheets listed on sheets 1-4 states 4 when there were 5 sheets submitted. Sheet 5 doesn’t have the page number and the total number of pages listed. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0 , 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 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – As the rezoning to O-1 has not been effectuated the existing zoning listed under Site Note 2 should be R-1. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – Add the following to Site Note 2 “PROPOSED ZONING IS O-1 PER C9-19-20”. Also list all rezoning conditions on the plan. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The Use Specific Standards provide on the last review were not correct and should be 4.9.4.R and 4.9.13.J. Revise Site Note 3 to show the correct standards. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Per Use Specific Standard 4.9.4.R.7 New construction shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) for architectural and site design compatibility, Design Review is required. Contact Maria Gayosso for requirements at Maria.Gayosso@tucsonaz.gov. 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. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future sight visibility triangles on the plan . On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said demonstrate on the plan how the requirements are met along the north side of the access lane along the north side of the building. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Dimension the back-up spur shown at the east end of the vehicle use area. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The number of needed states 6 but 1148/300 = 4. Revise the calculation to reflect the correct number required and provide the ratio used. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Detail 3 sheet 2 the location dimension show for the wheel stop is not correct. Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and revise the detail. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a mounting height dimension for the accessible sign on the detail. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For your information per UDC Article 7.4.8.B.1.a.(1) No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the required short-term bicycle parking that clearly demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1, .2 & 7.4.9.C are met. If you elect of provide long-term bicycle parking provide a detail that clearly demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1, .2 & 7.4.9.D are met. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J – Show the future curb for Craycroft on the plan. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 11.4.6 definition of Established Area Setback and this site boarders on a street designated as a major street on the COT MS&R Plan this site does not qualify for Established Area Setbacks. Therefore, the street perimeter yard setbacks for Craycroft Rd are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1. ADT or 1,000 or greater. Provide a street perimeter yard setback form the existing building to the back of future curb. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that there is an accessible route from the accessible vehicle parking space to the accessible entrance of the building and from the accessible entrance to the sidewalk along Craycroft. Does not appear that there are any ramps provided. 20. 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. Provide a general note stating “ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARTE PERMITS”. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. To resubmit your plans for additional review, please visit: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 09/29/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 10/08/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Email from: David.Stiffey@TucsonAz.gov To: CDRC Fri 10/8/2021 12:20 PM 1. Sheet C2- Keynote 4, states "extruded curb," - curb returns coming into the property off of Craycroft Rd. Concrete curb within the right of way must be according to P.A.G. Standard 209. And cannot be extruded according to Development Standard 3-01.3.2.B.1.2 2. Sheet C2- Due to the limited property frontage from Craycroft Rd. please update the entrance to P.A.G. Standard 206; Driveway Apron. (This is the modified 206 according to the "solid-circle note" on sheet 1 of 2- P.A.G. 206. 3. Sheet C2- Tie-in to existing sidewalk north of property entrance according to P.A.G. Standard 203 4. Sheet C2- Show spot grades of ADA compliance where sidewalk will meet new P.A.G. standard 206 driveway apron. 5. Sheet C2- Trash and Recycle receptacles need to be moved out of the right of way and on to the property per COT-Technical Standard, Section 8; All Development, 8-01.5.4 6. Sheet C2, where Keynote 8 (4 Ft. wide raised concrete sidewalk) will intersect new sidewalk in the ROW, show spot grades that are in ADA compliance. 7. Sheet C2- "Sight Visibility Triangles" need to be corrected. The hypotenuse of the triangle begins on the intersecting road (or property in this case) of the stem side of the triangle. The "Lengths" noted (345’ near side & 125’ far side) are for the "Long-leg" of the triangle. According to COT Development Standard, 3-01.5 and figure 16 8. Sheet C2- Due to Craycroft Rd. being an MS&R street, show "future" sight visibility triangle according to COT Development Standard, 3-01.5.1.B.2 9. Sheet C2- Keynote 6 states "stop sign." There isn’t a keynote 6 hexagon on plan sheet C2. David Stiffey City of Tucson |
| 11/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/17/2021 | SBEASLE1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 11/17/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change |