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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/03/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/03/2022 | MGAYOSS1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Denied | At the 6/3/2022 DRB meeting, the DRB recommended to the PDSD director denial, finding the project not in compliance with the criteria established UDC § 4.9.4.R.7, requesting the applicant returns to the DRB with revised materials that demonstrate compliance. The Legal Action Report is available nline: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/clerks/uploads/bccfiles/34339.pdf Please resubmit the Development Package with revisions demonstrating compliance with UDC § 4.9.4.R.7, including, but not limited to, a reduced parking area and preliminary proposed elevations for the existing structure. ===================== At the 9/16/2022 DRB meeting, the DRB recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Applicant to provide alternative paving materials other than asphalt that compliments the residential nature of the neighborhood; possible materials include decompressed granite or concrete, but highly encouraged are pervious surface materials throughout the site, but specially on the western portion of the property, where visible from the street; 2) Applicant to increase the amount of landscaping on the West side of the property, between the existing building and the street; and 3) Applicant to revise drive aisles with correct turning radii in the driving/parking areas throughout the site. Please resubmit the Development Package with the revisions requested by the DRB. ================================= |
| 06/22/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Craycroft Office Development Package (4th Review) DP21-0086 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 22, 2022 DUE DATE: June 17, 2022 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. 1. COMMENT: It does not appear that revised plans were submitted. The DP sheets provided only include sheets C2 & C.3 and it does not appear that any of the following comments were addressed. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. Previous comment 1 - This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – The drawing index shows 6 pages but only 5 were submitted, clarify the difference. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. Previous comment 2 - This comment was not addressed correctly. Sheets 1 through 4 list the total number of sheets as 6 when only 5 were submitted and sheet 5 does not provide page number and the total number of pages. 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. 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. Previous comment 5 - This comment was not fully addressed. The rezoning conditions were not provided on the plan. 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. 4. Previous comment 7 - This comment was not addressed. 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. 5. Previous comment 8 - Zoning was not able to find the future SVT’s on the plan.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. 6. Previous comment 10 - This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the radius for the back-up spur, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Dimension the back-up spur shown at the east end of the vehicle use area. 7. Previous comment 13 - This comment was not addressed correctly. Remove the reference to “36” on the “H/C ACCESSBLE TY” detail and the “3’-0”” on the “STANDARD PARKING SPACE” as this does not meet the requirements shown in UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 . 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. 8. Previous comment 14 - This comment was not addressed correctly. The mounting height should be to the bottom of the van accessible sign. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a mounting height dimension for the accessible sign on the detail. 9. Previous comment 16 - The short-term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements listed below, review the standards and provide a short-term bicycle detail that meets the requirements. As the plan still references long-term bicycle parking provide a detail on the plan. 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. 10. Previous comment 17 - This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J – Show the future curb for Craycroft on the plan. 11. Previous comment 18 - This comment was not addressed. 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. 12. Previous comment 19 - This comment was not addressed. 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. 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 |
| 06/24/2022 | DSTIFFE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | DP21-0086 Comments: 1. Developer "Response" in PRO alludes to revisions for all of the requests, but there are none. 2. Sheet C2- shows 25' radius curb return entry way. A "P.A.G. standard 206 "modified" Driveway Apron" needs to be constructed rather than a curb return entry. Keynote No. 23 states, "P.A.G. standard 206 driveway apron." Please show a P.A.G. standard 206 driveway apron on the plan. Have the keynote mention that the driveway is the "modified" per the "solid-circle note" on sheet 1 of 2 in the detail. This adds additional depressed curb for streets with a travel speed greater than 35 mph. 3. Show Concrete Curb on the plan and a keynote that states that the curb will be constructed per P.A.G. standard 209. 4. Sheet C2- Please provide a note regarding tying-in to existing sidewalk at both the north and south ends of the property according to P.A.G. Standard 203. 5. Sheet C2- Please show on-the-plan spot grades of ADA compliance where sidewalk will meet new P.A.G. standard 206 driveway apron. 6. Sheet C2- Please provide a keynote which states that New Concrete Sidewalk (in the ROW) will be constructed per P.A.G. standard 200 and will be 6 Ft wide. 7. Sheet C2- Concerning "Keynote 8." Where the sidewalk from the onsite circulation path ties-into sidewalk in the ROW, there needs to be an "ADA Landing." At this junction, the landing must be a minimum of 60" X 60" and not to exceed a 2% cross-slope in all directions. Please show this on the plan and have a keynote describing the landing. David Stiffey DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/01/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: DP21-0086, 4th submittal Address: 1834 N. Craycroft Rd. Parcel: 121-02-1910 Zoning: O-1 Existing Use: Residential home Proposed Use: Office, parking TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 1, 2022 DUE DATE: June 17, 2022 COMMENTS: General Comment - UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. 1. Although on the plan set legend and responded to in the comments, no water harvesting plan was submitted. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting plan is required UDC Technical Standards Manual - Section 4-01.0.0. and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening. 2. Catclaw acacia is not an appropriate plant for areas of car/pedestrian circulation, please chose a canopy tree species. 3. There are graphic conflicts on Notes 26 and 27, please revise. 4. This comment was not addressed - Notes #18 conflict with Note #19 , please revise. Note #28 and #29 are not relevant, please remove. 5. Parking lot trees are not the same as landscape border trees, provide 2 additional trees along the north property line, where not in conflict with utility lines. 6. This comment was not adequately addressed - An existing 6' wall occurs along the northern boundary, and a 5' wall is proposed. This creates an unsafe tunnel situation, demonstrate how the new wall complies with Safe by Design guidelines, Technical Standards Manual 5-01.6.0. A Design Development Option may be pursued to delete this requirement but must be coordinated with the eastern neighbor. 7. This comment was not adequately addressed - The street landscape border must provide 50% vegatative cover within the border, the plants indicated are insufficient, and calculations are incorrect. 8. The street landscape border is within the right of way and must be approved by the CoT Transportation and Mobility Department. A right of way use permit is required. These notes are required to be added and were not; Standard Notes for Planting in ROW a. It is the owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Unified Development Code (UDC) Technical Standards Manual Section 10. b. It is the owner responsibility to keep a 5' wide by 7' tall clear pedestrian access open across the entire property. c. It is the owner responsible to keep vegetation from growing past the curb line clear and keep a 15' high clear zone over the travel lane. d. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. e. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. f. The owner takes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities. g. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW are lateral lines, tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment must be on private property. (excluding water meter) h. Contractor to obtain a Right Of Way permit prior to construction within the right-of-way. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4969. |
| 07/06/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Rene Martinez, Rene Flores Wed 7/6/2022 1:58 PM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0086 Project Description: SITE/GRADING: Craycroft office. 1834 N CRAYCROFT RD Fee Balance: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. YOUR NEXT STEPS 1. SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. Title your FIFTH submittal documents accordingly, example: 5_Comment Response Letter 3. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL to Filedrop: - Comment Response Letter (your response to REQUIRES CHANGE comments) - Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) - Any other documents requested by review staff FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - "Existing Application" - "Permit Number" field: enter the number (and any notes for our staff) - Select "PLANS" for all documents Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Certified Building Technician City of Tucson, Planning & Development Services Dept. Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (for development packages, land splits, Thursday Presubmittal meetings) Email: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov (for building permits) |