Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0012
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/29/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/29/2004 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the NPP plan to match the limits of grading on the landscape plan; also indicate areas of non-disturbance on the NPP plan. 2. This project is subject to the requirement for a Scenic Corridor Zone review. TCC Sec 23A-42 Submit all plans and any requested correspondence for the next review. |
| 07/30/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D04-0012 ADOBE VETERINARY CENTER DATE: JULY 29, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project on condition. That “Woodland Ave.” is corrected to “Woodland Road” (sheet 2) on Mylar. NOTE: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 08/02/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/11/2004 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 11, 2004 To: Craig Gross Planning Administrator FROM: Loren Makus Engineering Division SUBJECT: Adobe Veterinary Center Development Plan D04-0012 (Second Review) T13S, R15E, Section 33 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Engineering Section has reviewed the Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) for Adobe Veterinary Center and does not recommend approval of the DP and DR at this time. The DR was reviewed for DP review purposes. The following review comments need to be addressed in the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Show the location and extent of the berm used to form the retention basin. Show that the slopes of the berm are no steeper than 3:1. 2. Revise the back-up spur to meet the requirements of the development standard. Provide wheel stops or curbs at the back of the back-up spur. The pipe bollards may be placed three feet behind the wheel stops.(DS 3-05.2.2.D) 3. Show the retention basin/berm on the Development Plan 4. Show that the Farrier Barn meets the floodplain development requirements. Drainage Report: 5. As previously commented, provide an encroachment analysis to show that there will be no adverse impacts either upstream or downstream of the development. Determine any change in water surface elevation either upstream or downstream of the proposed fill. If you have any questions, or if you wish to set up a meeting, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate |
| 08/18/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D04-0012 Adobe Veterinary Center Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: August 17, 2004 DUE DATE: August 12, 2004 COMMENTS 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is April 14, 2005. 2. The first submittal of the Scenic Corridor Packet was rejected due to incompleteness. The applicant was instructed to provide four sided color renderings of the principal building along with color and building materials palettes. John Hucko has provided DSD with one copy of the requested information but is required to provide additional copies and he is aware of the requirements. In addition the first review was made for the development plan requirements but not for compliance for Scenic Corridor requirements. My previous comment also stated that additional comments related to the development plan and the Scenic Corridor would be forthcoming. Some of the following comments are related to the development plan and others are related to the Scenic Corridor. Please address the comments and revise the plan sheets as required. (Previous Comment: This development is subject to the requirements and criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback and Scenic Corridor overlay zones. A separate Scenic Corridor submittal and fees are required for review and approval prior to approval of the development plan. As of this review date the application and submittal for the Scenic Corridor could not be verified. Additional comments may be forthcoming due to the Scenic Corridor review, which may affect the design of this development. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10) 3. A portion of the required pedestrian refuge with the four-foot sidewalk along the eastside of the building has not been clearly depicted, labeled or dimensioned. The entire building frontage along the east side must have a five pedestrian refuge with a minimum four-foot wide sidewalk. Revise as required. (Previous Comments: Address the following items related to the vehicular use area. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 and (DS 3-05 Veh. Use) A. A five-foot wide pedestrian refuge area with a four-foot sidewalk is required along the east side of the building. Draw and label the refuge area as required. 4. The setback for the proposed pen is to be a minimum of 50 feet from the street property line. A setback dimension of 60 feet from the edge of the pavement was shown but not from the property line. Please add the setback from the property line to the pen. (Previous Comment: This site has frontage on a major street and a local street. An interpretation which was made by the Zoning Administrator with regards to building setbacks when a parcel fronts on a major street the local street is viewed as a major street for purposes of applying the building setback. Please revise the following items related to the building setback requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.I and DS 2-05.2.4.N A. Clarify if the 60-foot pen is enclosed or will it be constructed with a roof structure or is it a corral structure. If the pen is enclosed or constructed with a roof structure, the building setback for the structure must be fifty feet from the property line. If additional structures are proposed such as corrals, barns, shade structures etc, please show on the plan, the location, size, height, and type or purpose of each structure.) 5. I acknowledge that a DSMR will be requested for the required sidewalk from the west street to the site. I further acknowledge that mainly staff will use the sidewalk. The DSMR request is for modification only and not for elimination of a development requirement. The DG walkway must be designed to connect to the barn from the street and from the principal structure. The walkway must also be wheel chair accessible therefore the DG walkway must meet criteria such as depth of DG and compaction. I believe that before submitting the DSMR request that Dave Mann DSD Codes Administrator be contacted by the applicant to insure that DG is acceptable material for accessibility. (Previous Comment: Address the following items related to pedestrian circulation. DS 2-05.2.4.K and DS 2-08 A. Per DS 2-08.4.1. At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. This site has frontage on three streets and must be provided with a four-foot sidewalk from each street sidewalk. The sidewalks must connect to the on site pedestrian circulation. The sidewalks must be physically separated from the vehicular use areas by constructing a raised concrete sidewalk. This site has not been provided with any sidewalk from any of the three street frontages. Please add the sidewalks as required, label and dimension. 6. I acknowledge that others will do the proposed signage. It is advisable that the signage be included in the Scenic Corridor review process otherwise and unless the approved colors and materials approved for the buildings are used for the signs a separate Scenic Corridor review and approval will be necessary. (Previous Comment: If applicable indicate the location, size and type of freestanding signs. The signs may not be placed within the 30-foot natural buffer. DS 2-05.2.4.W) 7. As stated in comment seven, this site is subject to the criteria and requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. The development plan may not be approved until a scenic corridor review and approval has been granted. The same development plan is to be used for the review of the scenic requirements. Additional notes must be added to the plan including a color and materials palette that describes the name of the paint colors, manufacturer and manufacturer number, materials palette with the same information, view corridors drawn and labeled and the view corridor calculation. Additional comments will be forthcoming once the Scenic Corridor application and revised development plan drawing is re-submitted for review. Add the following SCZ notes to the development plan. An additional sheet may be required to provide the required SCZ information, which includes notes, color and materials palette view corridors. 1. Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state". 2. Please address the following item on the development plan. a.) View corridors = (calculation). The view corridors must be depicted, labeled, and dimensioned. b.) The paint colors and materials must be listed on the development plan. The list can be a matrix that lists all the proposed paint colors (name), manufacturer, and manufacturer number. The second matrix can be for the materials proposed for the buildings, fencing, signage etc., material name, material color, manufacturer, and manufacturer number. (Previous Comment: Building or structure surfaces, which are visible Tanque Verde Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape. Colors are as follows: (list approved colors from SCZ-04-06 case.) c.) I have discussed with Walter Tellez the plastic breakaway rail fencing which exists on the site. Because this is a new use for the site the fencing must be removed and any fencing must meet the requirements per the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which include setbacks, colors and materials. Keep in mind that the fence is not allowed within the 30-foot buffer area. If the owner wishes to leave the fence as it exists on the site the owner must apply for a Board of Adjustment variance. (Previous Comment: Fencing and freestanding walls facing Houghton Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements.) ****Additional documents required based on the scenic corridor review: I as the Senior Planner have reviewed the development plan for compliance with the land use code, and development standards criteria and requirements as well as compliance with scenic corridor requirements. In reviewing for scenic requirement, information such as location of the 400-foot buffer it has been noted that both the barn and the holding pen are within the buffer and will be visible from the Tanque Verde street frontage. Therefore color renderings for the barn as well as paint colors and materials must be provided. The materials part list and colors for the holding pen must also be listed. I am providing the scenic information as part of the development plan review as it relates to Zoning review requirements to allow the applicant time to complete any additional documents, renderings etc related to the review and approval of the scenic corridor. The next submittal of the development plan must incorporate all changes necessary as a result of zoning, engineering, landscape, and sign reviewer comments. See the landscape reviewer comments for additional notes that must be added to the development plan and landscape /NPPO plan sheets. 8. Because the scenic corridor application had been rejected the scenic corridor review has not been made concurrently with the development plan. The DSD reviewing agencies that will review the scenic corridor application will provide comments regarding the respective area of review no later than August 31, 2004. I as the contact person for the scenic corridor review on this project will compile all the comments and provide them to the applicant. All changes must be made to the plans as requested by the reviewing agencies. Early re-submittal of the development plan without addressing scenic corridor requirements will delay approval of the development plan and the scenic corridor. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D040012dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |
| 08/24/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/24/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 24, 2004 TO: Steve Wollerman, AMEC Infrastructure THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Adobe Veterinary Center - Submittal D04-0012 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 1: Delete General Notes 10 & 11. Sheet 2: The as-built drawings for the existing 18" sewer line in Woodland Road (G70-30) show that it is curved between Manholes #7 and #8, and it lies entirely within the right of way of Woodland Road, rather than crossing this property as shown. Revise/advise as necessary. Sheet 2: The docket and page numbers shown for the public sewer easement are not correct. This docket and page number is for a correction warranty deed for the property. I found no record of a public sewer easement for this sewer line. Please delete the label for the public sewer easement. Sheet 2: Due to odor concerns, any new manhole over the existing 18" sewer line in Woodland Road will need to be equipped with a watertight cover, and the 4" Building Connection Sewer (BCS) equipped with a backwater valve. Sheet 2: Constructing a new manhole an the existing 18" public sewer line will be extremely expensive as this would have to be a 5' lined manhole, and flow management would most likely be required. This office recommends the following options be explored, prior to re-submitting: Obtaining a variance to allow the 4" BCS to be connected to the existing 18" sewer line via a direct tap. Mr. Frank Luis of the PCWMD Design Section will need to approve such a variance. Note: A backwater valve would still need to be installed in the BCS Connecting to the 12" sewer line in Tanque Verde Road via direct tap. Either of these options is likely to be less expensive than 6. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |