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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0027
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/03/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/10/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | May 10, 2007 TO: Wayne Royce Urban Engineering THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Tom Porter Sr. Civil Eng. Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: AVN Properties LLC Development Plan – 3rd Submittal D06-0027 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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Tom Porter Telephone: (520) 740-6579 Copy: Project File |
| 05/15/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0027 AVN Properties LLC Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 15, 2007 DUE DATE: May 30, 2007 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. Please change "Commercial Storage" to "Personal Storage" in details 1/2, 2/2, 3/2, and 8/2. 2. Please label the sixty (60) right-of-way for Alvernon Way as sixty (60) foot half (1/2) future right-of-way. 3. Please remove the handicap ramp from the side of the handicap parking space as shown in detail A/2. A van accessible space will include a minimum eight (8) foot wide parking space with a eight (8) foot wide access aisle (combination of 16 feet) that runs parallel to the space. An accessible ramp is then located at the top of the access aisle to provide a transition from the elevated sidewalk onto the access aisle within the vehicle use area. · The ramp shall be located so it does not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles. ANSI 406 · Curb ramps shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in width, exclusive of flared sides. The curb ramp flares shall not be steeper than 1:10. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20. The adjacent surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks, gutters and streets shall be at the same level. All slopes are to be indicated on the plan/plat and associated details. ANSI 406.2, 3, & 4 · All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 4. Please correct the minimum handicap sign height to eight-four (84) inches as required by TDOT. 5. The required dimension between bicycle parking spaces is thirty (30) inches. Please provide this dimension in detail A/2. 6. The four (4) foot minimum sidewalk from the site ending at the future PAAL must extend on the opposite side of the PAAL and connect to the proposed six (6) foot wide sidewalk within Alvernon Way. The sidewalk will include required handicapped ramps with truncated domes meeting all ADA requirements. This sidewalk is not a requirement that is to be installed in the future but constructed as part of this project. DS 2-08.4.1.A & DS 2-08.5.1 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 74960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0027dpr1.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 05/16/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/22/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A 10-foot landscape border and a 30-inch screen are required to screen the vehicular use/parking area from the adjacent Alvernon Way right-of-way to the east. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the property line or MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. Identify the property line on the landscape plan and locate the required street landscape border accordingly. The landscape border cannot be located in the public-right-of-way. LUC 3.7.2.3, LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 2) The southern portion of the site contains a mapped riparian habitat (Critical and Sensitive Biological Communities. Shaw, 1986). A plant/habitat inventory per the WASH guidelines is required. The inventory is to include a numbered inventory list of all woody plants and cacti (living and dead) within the portions of the floodplain where disturbance is proposed. Include trunk diameter, height measurements and viability ratings for all woody plants and cacti having basal trunk diameters greater than 5 cm (about 2 inches). Describe the inventory methodology (state the type of inventory performed) and describe the delineation on the plan. Revise the floodplain plants list. A full inventory of the entire floodplain (as prescribed above) would be necessary to delineate the riparian habitat as shown on NPPP-1. Clarify if this was done. 3) Revise the riparian habitat delineation to include areas that provide habitat structure, wildlife food and shelter, and that also aid in supporting wildlife connectivity, erosion control and help to improve stormwater quality. The areas on this site that provide these functions include the native plants other than creosote along the low flow depressions within the floodplain. While the vegetative resources are minimal on portions of this site there is a continuum of open space and vegetation that should be included in the riparian habitat delineation. 4) Revise the Development plan to correctly locate the street landscape border required along Alvernon Way. A 26' landscape as indicated within the public right-of-way on sheet 3 does not comply with the code requirement. See comment #2. The "future street" proposed parallel to Alvernon Way may not be located in the street landscape border location. 5) Correct the development plan to identify the xeroriparian habitat as determined by the Plant/Habitat Inventory and delineation. Spell the term "xeroriparian" correctly. 6) Mitigation for plants removed from the floodplain is to be provided at a 2: ratio for shrubs and trees less than 4" in caliper and 3: 1 for trees 4" and greater. Revise as necessary. 7) Mitigation and or transplants related to floodplain development should be located in approximately the same location (just further into the floodplain) as the plants being removed to promote a continuous habitat and to allow plants access to available water during smaller rainfall events. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 05/25/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Refuse enclosure on sheet 5, does not have adequate space to allow svc. vehicle to maneuver from enclosure area. Too tight to make the turn. Require a 3ft buffer between the building and the service vehicle. DS 6-01.3.1.A & see figure 1, turning radii. 2. Acces and approach to refuse enclosure on sheet 4 will work. 3. Refuse collection detail E on sheet 2 okay. Require two side wall protectors not three. Three may restrict user access to side of dumpster. Please make corrections upon resubmittal. |
| 06/15/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 15, 2007 SUBJECT: AVN Properties LLC- 3rd Development Plan Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 6952 S Alvernon Way; T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D06-0027 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised development plan, landscape plan, Drainage Report (Urban Engineering, Inc., 27APR07) and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09FEB07). The drainage report was reviewed for development plan purpose only. The development plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2: It is acknowledge that the erosion hazard setback line (ESL) is shown on the revised development plan, however the drainage report does not provide a discussion or determination on how the ESL was established. Provide an addendum to the report that addresses the requirements within Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2. 2) It is acknowledge that the Xero-riparian habitat line is delineated on the revised development plan, however any changes required due to Landscaping comments must be revised and shown on the revised development plan. Landscaping must approve the mitigation of any disturbance prior to Engineering Division approval of the Development Plan. 3) Tucson Code Chapter 26-11: Provide a Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) with the next development plan submittal for the encroachment of fill, walls, and buildings within the existing 100-year floodplain. A FUP must be submitted with the Development Plan for approval. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Review of sheet 3 still shows that the docket and page for the 10-foot Public Sewer Easement has not been provided. Sheet 4 of 6 shows a recordation number for the 10-foot Public Sewer Easement, clarify if the easement has been recorded or if this is a typographical error. Recordation of the easement is required prior to development plan approval. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.C: Revise the proposed future PAAL location so that it does not interfere with the Landscaping requirements and setbacks. PAALs can not be located within the required landscape area. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise the development plan to provide an accurate detail for the rock riprap erosion protection that is proposed at the outlet of the 6-24" reinforced concrete culverts. The detail must match the requirements within the drainage report. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Clarify on the Development Plan the required 6-foot sidewalk along abutting right-of-way of Alvernon Way. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. The sidewalk must be labeled as proposed to be constructed unless an approved DSMR can be verified prior to development plan approval. 8) Refer to Traffic Engineering comments and Pima County Development Services (PCDS) for County requirements within the County right-of-way for Alvernon Way. If sidewalks are not required through PCDS a DSMR will need to be applied for to eliminate the required sidewalk and curb along the street frontage. Provide approval from PCDS, contact Brandon.Matheson@dsd.pima.gov for further questions regarding work within the public right-of-way. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to show the proposed 4-foot pedestrian access path connecting to the required 6-foot sidewalk located along Alvernon Way. The pedestrian circulation must be constructed as part of this permit unless a DSMR is applied for and approved to eliminate the required 6-foot sidewalk along the MS&R right of way. 10) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Revise the Development Plan and Detail 12 on sheet 4 of 6 to associate with a detail number that is not already being used. Detail 12 on sheet 5 of 6 is already in use and ca not be duplicated. 11) Revise detail # 7 on Sheet 2 to label the WSEL adjacent to the wall and building(s) to verify wall heigth. 12) Revise detail K and/or the profile view for the egress ingress driveway culverts to show the correct invert for the proposed RCP culverts. The invert for the culverts must match the hydraulic data sheets that were submitted with the proposed drainage report and must reference the same elevation on the profile sheet versus detail sheet. Any changes in the culvert invert must be shown in the drainage report and new hydraulic calculations must be submitted, if applicable. DRAINAGE REPORT: 13) Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2: The Drainage Report must provide a discussion on the required Erosion Hazard Setback from the regulatory wash. The ESL line is shown on the development plan, but is not discussed within the drainage report. All regulatory washes are required to have a registered civil engineer establish a safe erosion hazard setback for buildings from the bank of the wash as calculated from guidelines in the Standard Manual (DS Sec.10-2). Provide these calculations for review. GRADING PLAN: 14) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit application is required for this project prior to building plan approval. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. 15) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the development plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 16) Provide a General Note to reference conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements) on the grading plan. 17) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised development plan, drainage report, Floodplain Use Permit application and approval from DSD Landscaping Division that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the revised development plan, drainage report and DSD Landscaping Division reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 520-837-4929 (please note the new phone number for your records). Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/18/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 18, 2007 Wayne Royce Urban Engineering 877 South Alvernon Way, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D06-0027 AVN Properties LLC Development Plan Dear Wayne: Your submittal of May 1, 2007 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 (ESD, Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) THE ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD FOR THIS PLAN WILL EXPIRE SHORTLY. PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THIS PLAN, A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR REVIEW EXTENSION MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CDRC OFFICE. 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: 318-3808 |