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: CORE REVIEW
Permit Number - D05-0039
Review Name: CORE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/16/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/16/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/16/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. THE RAMP AT THE EXISTING BREAK MASTERS DOES NOT APPEAR TO COMPLY WITH 2006 IBC.ICC 117.1, SECTION 405.7, LANDINGS. PLEASE REVIEW CODE REQUIREMNTS AND REVISE AT REQUIRED. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING AT EDGE OF RAMP PRIOR TO ENTERING PAAL AREA. 2. PROVIDE A MARKED CROSSING FROM THE BREAK MASTERS RAMP DOWN TO THE ISLAND CUT JUST SOUTH OF THE PARKING AISLE. 3. AT THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND CUT THROUGH, JUST SOUTH OF THE PARKING ACCESS AISLE, PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AT EITHER END OF ROUTE JUST PRIOR TO PAAL ACCESS. 3. PROVIDE A MARKED CROSSING FROM THE ISLAND CUT THROUGH TO THE NEW RESTAURANT CURB RAMP AT ENTRANCE CONCRETE. 4. NOTE 1 AT THE ENTRANCE CURB RAMP IS INCORRECT. DELETE REFERENCE TO DOT 207 AND MAKE REFERENCE TO 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. RAMP HERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO WORK. REVALUATE AND REDESIGN AS PER ICC 117.1. 5. AT PARKING AISLE ON EAST OF RESTAURANT, IS CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FLUSH WITH ASPHALT PAVING. IF NOT THEN PROVIDE A SIDE WALK RAMP AS PER ICC 117.1 SECTION 405. 6. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE AT THE END OF THE PARKING AISLE JUST PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PAAL. 7. PROVIDE A CIONSISTANT MARKED CROSSING FROM THE PARKING AISLE TO THE EXISTING WALGREES CURB RAMP. 8. PROVIDE A CURB RAMP WITH DETECTABLE WARNING AT THE END OF THE MARKED CROSSING FROM THE RESTRURANT. 9. PARKING SPACE MUST BE VAN ACCESSIBLE, 11'-0" WIDE. 10. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE ON SIGN POLE JUST BELOW MAIN SIGN. |
| 07/16/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 07/24/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: Automotive Service Center - Resubmittal D05-0039 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted July 15, 2008. Alberta Adrian Office Specialist 918-8347 Ofc. 793-7504 Pgr. |
| 07/29/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0039 Automotive Service Center 07/29/08 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-98-34 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: August 12, 2008 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 ( ) 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Architectural Elevations REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: July 23, 2008 Urban Planning and Design D05-0039 Automotive Service Center Development plans for the drive-through restaurant are subject to rezoning requirements as part of the rezoning approval (C9-98-34); therefore, plans must be in substantial compliance to said conditions. 1. Rezoning condition #6 states "architectural elevations submitted at time of development plan review shall demonstrate four-sided architecture and visually interesting roof and parapet lines." Please submit elevations showing compliance with this condition. |
| 08/06/2008 | ANDY DINAUER | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 6, 2008 TO: Jefferson Stien EPS Group THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Automotive Service Center Development Plan – 1st Submittal Revision D05-0039 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 2: Show the private sewer easement with recordation information for the proposed private 6” sewer line shown running on the property east of project. Sheet 2: Show the pipe size and construction plan # for the existing public sewer line. Also show the rim and invert elevations for the existing public manhole. This office 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 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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Tom Porter Telephone: (520) 740-6579 Copy: Project |
| 08/07/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 2) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Provide dimensions (north boundary & islands) for planting areas, excluding curbing. 3) Provide curbing for the tree planter in the center of the parking field. |
| 08/08/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1. Masonry refuse/recycle enclosure detail, Gates must be equipped with ability to be secured in the open position during service. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and show within detail additional "cane bolt sleeves" positioned to secure the gates in the open position at a minimum of 90 degrees. 2. Recommend including provisions for recycling service. Add one single enclosure for each building or one single to be shared by both if the solid waste services and storage area/s will be managed and maintained by one single owner or manager. A general note should be added stipulating such. Please correct accordingly. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/08/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-0039 Automotive Service Center Development Plan - Revised TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 8, 2008 DUE DATE: August 12, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 July 14, 2009. 2. Under the General Notes text block note 2, revise as follows. The food Service Use is subject to LUC sections 3.5.4.6.C and 3.5.13.5. List the subject to sections for the food service use. 3. General note 3 lists the site area as 39,408 SF / .90 acres. On the previously approved development plan the site area is listed as 39,640 SF / .91 acres. Was the site area previously approved plan listed incorrectly or is the site area incorrect on the revised plan? Clarify and revise or respond accordingly. For consistency ensure that the site area under the Code Review text block and the General Notes match. 4. General note 6 lists the building height provided as 30 feet. The height is labeled as 28 feet on both building footprints on sheet 2. Revise as required. 5. On sheet 2 revise the annotation for the street building setback from 23'-4" to 28' and revise the dimension arrow. The street building setback is based on the overall height of the wall adjacent to the street property line. It is clear that the street building setback has been met but it is not clear what the actual height of the parapet walls are where adjacent to the street property line. Add as a note on both building footprints what the height of the parapet walls from design grade will be. 6. On sheet two, label the correct zoning adjacent to the north property line. 7. Label the existing curb to property line dimension and draw and label the future curb to property line. 8. Label the distance of the drive through lane. The lane must provide sufficient space for six vehicles at 18 feet in length each. The width of the drive through lane must be a minimum width of 11 feet. The space at the window may be reduced to 9 feet. No more than two (2) car lengths may be less than the minimum width of eleven (11) feet. Revise the drive through lane to comply with the width requirements and cross section 1. 3-05.2.1.C.2 9. One of the handicapped parking spaces must be designed for van accessibility. The van accessible space must be provided with an eight-foot wide access aisle. Both parking spaces have been provided with five-foot access aisles. Revise as required. The handicapped parking spaces do not have to be 20 feet in length. The minimum length required is 18 feet. Due to the 20 foot long HC parking space along the east side of building 1, the width of the PAAL has been reduced to less than the minimum of 24 feet required for two way traffic. 10. Pedestrian Circulation: Revise the sidewalk section next to the angled parking spaces as follows. The portion of sidewalk next to the HC parking space can be included as the access aisle as long as the slope requirements are met and can be an extension of the continuous pedestrian circulation. The width of the van accessible access aisle can be up to eight feet wide. The portion of the sidewalk between the two islands next to the angled parking must be constructed of concrete. Revise or add a key note stating the portion of the sidewalk will be constructed of concrete. The access ramp along the southeast corner of the building does not appear to provide the necessary clearance for turnaround. Contact Ron Brown for more information on truncated dome requirements and locations as well as the access ramp. The pedestrian circulation must connect to the dumpster to the north of the restaurant building. The sidewalk must be drawn and labeled on the plan. (The sidewalk may cross through the drive through aisle.) 11. Revise the bicycle parking facility detail. The detail drawing is depicting a non-acceptable bicycle rack. Review section 2-09 for acceptable rack designs and revise the plan as necessary. The bicycle parking facility may not be farther than 50 feet from the main entrance to the restaurant. Label the distance from the facility to the front door of the restaurant. 12. If applicable draw and label the location, height of pole, and type of freestanding lighting. 13. Revise the fine number on the reserved parking detail drawing to 518 dollars. 14. Ensure that all changes made to the development plan are made on the landscape and NPPO plans. 15. Be aware that additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal based on the revisions to the plan sheets. 16. The wheel stops for the angled parking spaces must be placed perpendicular to the to the parking space and must be a two and one-half feet from the front of the parking space. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D050039dprev.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan |
| 08/12/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D05-0039 AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 8/12/08 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Delete Bk 30 Pg 17 from title block on all sheets. Label project number on all sheets. Label building 2 on sheet 2. Delete directions from streets, sheet 2. |
| 08/19/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 19, 2008 Jeff Stanley 17 West Wetmore, Suite 302 Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: D05-0039 Automotive Service Center Revised Development Plan Dear Jeff: Your submittal of July 15, 2008 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (ADA, DUPD, Wastewater, Landscape, ESD, Zoning, Addressing, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Dimensioned, color building Elevations (DUPD, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 408-1403 dp-resubmittal |