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
Permit Number - DP21-0164
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/28/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Crystal Classics Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0164 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 28, 2021 DUE DATE: July 27, 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 June 24, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0164, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 – Label all streets that abut the project and the sections corners on the location map. 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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The existing and proposed use “COMMERCIAL USE” is not a use but a use group, clarify what the proposed use is. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).” 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Per UDC TABLE 6.3-3.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE O-1, O-2, & O-3 ZONES, O-3 Zone lot/site coverage is not applicable for a NonRes use. Remove the references to site coverage from the plan. 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. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 3 is addressed the vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The required number of accessible vehicle parking spaces is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11, Table 1106.1 26 to 50 parking spaces provided 2 accessible space are required with 1 being a van accessible space. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The provided number vehicle parking spaces does not appear to be correct. Keynote 17 calls out one of the spaces as motor cycle parking this space cannot be counted toward the provided number of spaces. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Until comment 3 is addressed the bicycle parking, short- & long-term, cannot be verified. There are very few allowed commercial uses in the O-3 zone that do not require short- & long-term bicycle parking 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Clarify if the perimeter yards shown under general notes are required or provided. If required the street should be listed as 21’ or the height of the exterior wall, greater of the two. ADT of the street determines where the street perimeter yard setback is measured from. The interior setbacks are based on UDC TABLE 6.3-3.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE O-1, O-2, & O-3 ZONES, O-3 Zone, and this is a Nonres Use and the only interior setback is to a C-3 zone it would be to a Nonres zone and the requirement is 10’ or ¾ the height of the exterior wall, greater of the two. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage of the building within the footprint. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/30/2021 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Email from: David.Stiffey@tucsonAz.gov To: CDRC Tue 8/3/2021 4:07 PM 1. Please orient the plan to correspond with the north arrow, or vise-versa. 2. Granada is a collector street. The SVT on the “near side” needs to be 265 Ft. 3. New pathways that tie-in to existing sidewalk needs to be compliant with ADA requirements; which may include modification of the existing. David Stiffey City of Tucson |
| 08/10/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. For parking on the western side of the building show that vehicles parking will not reduce the sidewalk width to less than 4' or extend into landscaped areas. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/20/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | REVIEW | Approved | Email from: Eric Latto To: CDRC Fri 8/20/2021 4:28 PM Approved. Eric Latto, Transit Service Coordinator Department of Transportation and Mobility City of Tucson 520-954-3717 |
| 08/23/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Philip Veneziano Mon 8/23/2021 10:01 AM Returned for Corrections: DP21-0164 DESCRIPTION: SITE - Crystal Classics. New fence and dumpster. 465 W SAINT MARYS RD FEES DUE: $ 594.00 Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW Fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENT If amount doesn't match "Fees Due", check back in a few hours after it is updated. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave this field blank 4- "Continue" 5- In the Pay column - check the boxes 6- "Continue" INCLUDE IN YOUR RESUBMITTAL 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff Please title your 2nd submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter, 07.01.21 FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then enter permit number) 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 and you will see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email for Development Pkgs: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (disregard the email response that will be sent automatically) Email for Building Permits: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov |
| 08/25/2021 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | Gates shall have TFD approved locks and latches. |