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 - DP22-0108
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/15/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Approved by engineer Loren Makus during the OK to Submit. |
| 06/20/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Witches Chicken – 4625 E Grant Rd Development Package (1st Review) DP22-0108 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 20, 2022 DUE DATE: June 16, 2022 COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings and 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 May 19, 2023. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – The drawing index is not correct, remove the reference to “REFERENCE LOT SPLIT S19-029”. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner listed on sheet 1. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0108, 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.6 – Provide the rezoning conditions, C9-87-62, on the plan. Also, provide the rezoning case number, C0-87-62, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - 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)”. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A – Provide the site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot for the Dutch Bros land split. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - The following information for Grant Rd dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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.5 – Clarify if any type of railing or wall is proposed around the east patio expansion. If any obstruction over six inches is proposed along the PAAL demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Clarify if any type of railing or wall is proposed along the north side of the east patio expansion. If proposed demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As you are relocating 2 accessible parking spaces provide a detail for the proposed accessible parking. Based on what is shown on the plan it appears that the proposed accessible parking space sighs encroach into the 2’-6” vehicle overhang area. Clearly demonstrate that the 2’-6” overhang area is clear of obstructions. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – It does not appear that the loading space calculation is correct. Review UDC TABLE 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS and correct the calculation. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clarify why the short-term bicycle parking calculation is using a square footage of 6,535 but under the vehicle parking calculation you use 6,999 sq. ft. Base on the 6.999 sq. ft. the required number of short-term would be 3, see UDC Article 7.4.3.G. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The long-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. The allowed exemption used for DP19-0079 does not apply as this project square footage is greater than 2,500 sq. ft. As use area is proposed at least 2 long-term spaces are required. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clearly shown the location for both the short- & long-term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail that demonstrates that the requirements of UDC 7.4.9.B.1, .B.2, .C & .D are met. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As a new parcel was created under S19-029 provide a copy of the required cross assess agreement/easement with the next submittal. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Revise the “SOUTH” perimeter yard setback to show that the setback is measured from the back of future cube. Also, it appears that the “PROVIDED” “SOUTH” dimension is incorrect and was pulled directly off of DP19-0079. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – It appears that the “PROVIDED” “WEST” setback dimension is incorrect and was pulled directly off of DP19-0079. Provide a setback dimension from the post supporting the patio cover. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.Ross@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 |
| 06/22/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/01/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/06/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Vince Catalano Wed 7/6/2022 1:51 PM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP22-0108 Project Description: Site - Witches Chicken. Add new patios. 4625 E GRANT 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 SECOND submittal documents accordingly, example: 2_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) |