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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0026
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/28/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/01/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D04-0026 PANTANO GARDENS/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 1, 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. APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL 42-87 LABELED IN SECTION 8 IS DELETED FROM THE LOCATION MAP ON APPROVED 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. jg |
| 07/12/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Two enclosures on south PAAL does work marginally. Possible conflict would be while servicing the west enclosure if the driver has to get out of the vehicle. The east enclosure wall may restrict the door from opening. Recomment that the enclosures be relocated to the east and be perpendicular to the east PAAL drive. Two enclosures on north PAAL cannot be services. The 14' x 40' required clear area for each enclosure infringes on the south parking. Recommend that the enclosures be designed at a 30 degree angle to the PAAL or relocated to the east end of the PAAL perpendicular to the PAAL. Shown detail enclosure requires side wall protection and 10' clear between the protection. |
| 07/14/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | |
| 07/15/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation plan to modify references county requirements to reflect appropriate City of Tucson standards. 2) The landscape border along the east property line is to include understory plantings. C9-95-32 3) The landscape border along the east property line is to include canopy trees. By definition the trees are to have "a trunk that, at maturity, is kept clear of leaves and branches at least six (6) feet above grade". Revise as necessary. C9-95-32 4) Include summary on the landscape plan that summarizes NPP requirements. Include the minimum number of plants to be transplanted and the number of mitigation plants required. 5) Revise the landscape plan to show the location of transplanted Ferrocactus wislizenii. DS 2-15.3.4 6) Show any proposed or required walls on the development and landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.2 7) Complete the development plan reference number on the plans. DS 2-07.2.2 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 07/21/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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 June 24, 2005. 2. There is no sheet 3. Revise general notes 2 and 5 where reference to sheet 3 occurs. 3. This project has been assigned development plan case number D04-0026. Place the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2) 4. Vacation of the 10' gas easement must occur prior to the issuance of permits. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B) 5. Dimension the width of the driveway area located in front of the entry. It appears to be wide enough for a one-way drive. If one-way, an arrow is required which points to the direction of the drive. In addition, a "do not enter" sign must be provided at the applicable end of the drive. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3) 6. Dimension the location of the future curb. Per MS&R, the face of future curb is to be located 12 feet from the property line. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.F) 7. There are two (2) keynote 14 under the legend at the bottom of sheet 2 of 2. Revise as required. 8. Dimension the width of the on-site pedestrian circulation system. Minimum four (4) foot sidewalk is required. (D.S. 2-08) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K) 9. Provide the lot coverage calculation breakdown. Lot coverage is comprised of ground level building area coverage plus vehicular use area divided by the gross site area. Revise the proposed lot coverage under the tabulations block as required. (LUC 3.2.9) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.M) 10. Provide the floor area ratio (FAR) ratio calculation. Maximum allowed FAR is .75. (LUC 3.2.11) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.M) 11. Provide the number of handicap parking spaces required based on IBC Table 1106.1. A total of three (3) handicap parking spaces are required based on 65 (correct number is 67 see comment below) vehicle parking spaces provided. 12. A total of 67 vehicle parking spaces are provided on the development plan drawing which includes the handicap parking spaces provided. Number of vehicle parking spaces (provided) listed on sheet 1 of 2 is 65. Revise as required. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.P) 13. Four percent (4%) of 67 vehicle parking spaces provided requires 2.68 bicycle parking spaces, which must be round up to three (3) Class II spaces. Revise calculation on sheet 1 of 2 and provided a third Class II space on the plan. (LUC 3.3.3.5) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q) 14. Label the required six (6) foot high wall as required by rezoning condition 1f. 15. Provide a detail of existing and/or proposed free-standing signage including billboards and outdoor lighting. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W) 16. Dimension the length of the parallel parking psaces provided. Minimum length of 23 is required by D.S. 3-05.2.1.B.2) 17. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/22/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 22, 2004 TO: James King, Rick Engineering Company THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Pantano Gardens - Submittal D04-026 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. This project will be tributary to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantano Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on our evaluation of the previous development plan for this site under project number D98-028, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D04-026, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. Include project cross-reference number D98-028 in the title block. SHEET 1. If the development plan boundaries have been shown correctly, there are no public sewers on the site (i.e. public sewer line I-69-8 is not on the property) and General Note 11 needs to be revised to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. If public sewer line I-69-8, and the associated public sewer easement on the property, the development plan boundaries need to be revised, and the wording of General Note 11 does not need to be changed. SHEET 1. If the design flow for the private HCS line is greater than 3,000 gallons per day, add the following General Note: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION SHEET 2. Show the size of the HCS. It is the understood that this facility will be a single building with a single HCS line. If this understanding is not correct, show all of the private sewer lines that will not be under the building footprint. We have sent to your office under separate cover three originals of a Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents. Once the three originals of the Agreement have been signed by the Owner of Record, and notarized, they must be returned to Wastewater Management in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Mylars of the development plan. 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 second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (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 |
| 07/26/2004 | JIM STOYANOFF | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments/objections |
| 07/26/2004 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 26, 2004 To: Craig Gross Planning Administrator FROM: Loren Makus Engineering Division SUBJECT: Pantano Gardens Development Plan D04-0026 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 9 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Engineering Section has reviewed the Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) for Pantano Gardens and does not recommend approval of the DP at this time. The DR is accepted for Development Plan purposes. The following review comments need to be addressed in the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. All type including contour labels must be at least 12-point type for clarity when reproduced. DS 2-05.2.1.C. 2. Show sections at the property boundaries to clarify that no cut or fill slopes will be created within 2 feet of the property line as required by the grading ordinance. 3. Show roof drainage patterns. Demonstrate that water-harvesting techniques are being used as required by rezoning condition 9. 4. Provide a letter from the Department of Transportation confirming that funds contribution for drainage improvements has been made as required by zoning condition 10. 5. Provide sidewalk scuppers or otherwise demonstrate that sidewalks and pedestrian routes will be maintained flood-free for up to a 10-year event. DS 2-08.3.1 6. General note 5 refers to sheet 3. Revise the note or provide the third sheet. 7. Clarify keynote 11. The discharge location is labeled 3 cfs on the plan view and 10 cfs in the note. 8. Keynote 14 is used twice in the keynote list. Clarify. 9. Note that the required sight visibility triangles are much smaller than indicated on the plan. 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 |
| 07/26/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved June 29, 2004. |
| 07/27/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: Pantano Gardens D04-0026 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated June 23, 2004. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. There appears to be conflicts with the existing pole lines on the west and east ends of the development. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Application for electrical service should be made by contacting the New Construction Department at (520) 770-2062. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Two sets of site plans, electrical load plans and off-site improvement plans are required for a preliminary electrical design. These plans should be sent in a minimum of ten (10) weeks prior to requiring service. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Cell Phone/Pager: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 07/27/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | no comments provided |
| 07/27/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 27, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D04-026 Pantano Gardens: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/27/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0026 Pantano Gardens 07/27/04 () Tentative Plat (xxxxx) Development Plan (xxxxx) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/26/04 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment (xxxx) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 07/26/04 |
| 07/30/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/30/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Submit the Traffic Impact Analysis as required by rezoning condition 1.G. This study shall be a category II TIA in accordance with the Access Management Guidelines. 2. The SVTs as indicated are oversized per the Development Standards. They are acceptable as they are conservative. 3. General notes 2, 5 make reference to a non-existent sheet 3. 4. Keynote 14 is duplicated on sheet 2. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |