Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0031
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approv-Cond | DATE: January 06, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D05-0031 Carmax: Development Plan(12-2-05) Approved, with the understanding that the developer/owner has agreed to work with the City to establish a wider corridor for the Rillito Riverpark. The width of the riverpark adjacent to Turbo Road does not meet current city/county standards. Establishing a wider riverpark corridor will require the relocation of Turbo Road farther to the south across the developer/owner’s property. |
| 01/12/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 12, 2006 Arden Ranshaw Arcadis 3777 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85716 Subject: D05-0031 Carmax Development Plan Dear Arden: Your submittal of December 2, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 903-2395 |
| 12/01/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/05/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A 10' wide street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A is required along the entire street frontage. The landscape plans now indicates no street landscape border along Turbo Road. 2) Provide the square footage of the total vehicular use area, not just public area on sheet L-1 of the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2 3) Revise the landscape plan to meet the screening requirements along Turbo Road. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3, LUC Table 3.7.2-I RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 12/05/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved December 05, 2005. |
| 12/08/2005 | 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: D05-0031 CARMAX/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: December 7, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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 |
| 12/13/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/15/2005 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | December 15, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D05-0031 PROJECT NAME: Carmax: Development Plan PROJECT ADDRESS: 4670 N. Circuit Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz, Civil Engineer The Development Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Resubmittal Required: Development Plan 1. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. 2. Cross reference details A, F, & I off of Sheet 2 of 5. 3. Include accessibility and vehicle maneuverability of larger vehicles accessing the loading zones. DS 2-05.2.4.S Loading zones appear to be difficult to access. It is still difficult to see if larger loading vehicles can access the loading zone gated within a screen wall on the west portion of this project. Please confirm that the Autoturn exhibit provided accounts for the largest desired vehicle that will access this loading zone site. 4. If possible please provide pedestrian access all the way out to Oracle Road. 5. Keynote 3 LANDSCAPE AREA A/5 refers to a typical drawing that does not appear to accurately illustrate these landscape areas in regards to the provided dimensions. 6. SHEET 4 of 5: Unable to locate EASEMENT KEYNOTES 13 and KEYNOTES 4 AND 22 in the plan sheet. Please revisit and confirm that all keynotes are shown in plan view. 7. SHEET 5 of 5: Unable to locate EASEMENT KEYNOTES 13. If you have any questions or need clarification on any of these comments please feel free to contact me at 791-5550 x1191 or Jose.Ortiz@ci.tucsonaz.govs |
| 12/21/2005 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D05-0031 Carmax, 4755 N. Oracle Road Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: December 21, 2005 DUE DATE: 12/15/2005 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 August 25, 2006. 2. This project was reviewed in accordance with applicable divisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). The content required on the plan was reviewed under DS Section 2-03. 3. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.7, please remove the annexation restrictions provided on the plan labeled "B, Section 2 and Section 3." Only section , as listed, is applicable. 4. (Per last review.) Per DS 2-03.2.3.B, all easements should be shown on the plan. Staff has received information that a crucial, established access easement to the property south of this development has not been shown on the plan. If applicable, please revise the plan to show this access easement, the width and recordation information. Note, provide copies of the cross-access agreement between this development and the parcel to the south, as access is shown between the parcels in aerial photos. If one is not already drafted, one is required. 5. (Per last review/this review.) Staff acknowledges the existing lot lines for this development are shown, Per DS 2-05.2.4 (parcel numbers 104-08-0810, 011G, 011B, 077D and 005C). Note, buildings are not permitted to straddle lot lines. These properties must be combined into one lot to allow the position of the proposed buildings. For lot combinations, covenants are required. Please contact me for further information on this matter. 6. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 and 3-05.2.1.C.1, the minimum width of a two-way Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) is 24 feet. The PAAL area near the trash dumpster - between the concrete apron and parking lot island scales at only 18 feet. Please revise this area to meet minimum PAAL standards previously advised. 7. (Per last review.). Per DS 2-05.2.4.K and 2-08.4.1.A, sidewalks must be provided to the buildings from EACH Street on which the project has frontage. Please provide sidewalks - and handicapped accessibility from Turbo Road to the main car sales building. The alternative is to seek approval of a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). Please contact the Community Design Review Committee Office (CDRC) within Development Services at 520-791-4541 for further details on the DSMR process. 8. The sidewalk area provided from Old Oracle Road to the building must be a minimum of 5 feet wide where parallel to a PAAL, and 4' wide where abutting the parking spaces. The sidewalk area provided is labeled "width varies". Please revise the submittal to indicate the minimum widths required, as described, will be provided. In addition, revise the cross-section drawing showing the fencing area to include the required sidewalk area. 9. It appears the area next to the trash enclosure, adjacent to the main auto sales building, is a covered vehicle use area. Please clarify if it is, and give dimensions. 10. (Per last review.) A sidewalk is shown along the west side of the guard rail. The required width of the sidewalk (4 feet) will be impeded, given the dimensions in the cross-section. Please review sections 2-08 and 3-05 for parking space, parking bumper and sidewalk regulations, and amend the cross-section as needed (see comment 8). 11 (Per last review.). Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, in several places noted on the submitted plans, free-standing lighting is shown. Staff acknowledges the Lithonia Lighting package provided, however, details for any planned free-standing lighting, signage and current billboards must be shown on the development plan submittal. Please dimension a typical light detail in relation to parking spaces and property lines. 12. Please note, depending upon the responses provided on the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0031.4755n.oracle.2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 12/29/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 29, 2005 To: Arden Ranshaw, Arcadis Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Carmax Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D05-0031 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. 1. The required capacity response letter, no. 05-177 (Updated) has been received by our office. 2. Sheets 1: On sheets 3 - 5, the public and private sewer lines are shown using different line-types, that are readily distinguished from each other. Revise the LEGEND block so that it shows: Examples of these different linetypes, depicted on sheets 3-5, are displayed in the LEGEND block on Sheet 1. 3. Sheet 1: Revise the LEGEND block so that: It will show and describe the symbols used to depict the existing and proposed sewer manholes used on sheet 4. Also, add a symbol for cleanouts if they are going to be incorporated as a part of this plan. 4. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. 5. Sheets 3 & 4: The proposed private sanitary sewers from NEW MH#3 to EXIST. MH#20, at the point of connection to the public sewer system should be identified with Keynote # 19. Revise the plan so that: Keynote #19 is removed from the 4 Building Connection Sewers that connect the plumbing from BLDG. 1 and BLDG. 2. And revise the keynote to say PRIVATE 8" SANITARY SEWER. 6. Sheets 3 & 4: Revise the plan so that it shows: The proposed BCS lines, labeled with their diameter, length and slope of the pipe and the letters BCS. 7. Sheets 3 & 4: Revise the plan so that: The plans show any building cleanouts that will be required per the plumbing code. And provide the rim and invert elevations of any required cleanouts. Add cleanouts to the Legend block on Sheet 1. 8. Sheets 3 & 4: The pipe slopes used on the plan are not consistent with the manhole invert elevations and pipe lengths that are shown. Revise the plan so that: From the EXIST. MH# 4664-20 to NEW MH#3 the correct slopes or invert elevations are shown for each pipe length or manhole of the proposed private sewer. 9. Sheet 4: Revise the manhole number at the point of connection to the public sewer so that: The IMS number is used to identify the existing manhole (EXIST. MH#20) at the point of connection to the public sewer. The IMS numbers are the manhole numbers found on the PCWMD Maps and Record Section basemaps and on PCWMD and PCDOT internet MapGuide websites. 10. 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 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 fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third(3rd) 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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |