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 - D06-0041
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/04/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The loading area is required to be screened from the street per LUC table 3.7.2-I. Revise the development plan and landscape plan to provide the required 6' high masonry wall. 2) Show the proposed loading area on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.0 3) Revise the development and landscape plans to provide a minimum distance of two (2) feet between the PAAL(s) and any wall, screen, or other obstruction. DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 Include dimensions on the plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 01/08/2007 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Plan shows two locations now for the refuse enclosure. The new one exceeds the backup distance of the Development Standards. * Oriogional comments were not addressed. |
| 01/09/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0041 Tucson Mall Oil Stop Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 3, 2007 DUE DATE: January 24, 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. General Comment: Staff suggest that the site be redesigned. Access to parking, stacking, trash receptacles provided on site are not usable. A full review cannot be accomplished until this is done. It is also suggested that the applicant meet with staff prior to future resubmittals. 1. It is not clear how the vacuums bays work with the rest of the car wash. Typically the vacuuming is done prior to the car wash with vacuums in between the aisles leading into the car wash. This design has the customer pulling into an individual space. Where is the required stacking space? Are the stacking spaces shown How does the customer back up to go into the car wash? LUC 3.3.4 Car Wash Automative System & DS 3-05.2.1.C.2.d 2. Previous Comment: Angled parking shown would indicate that the vehicles will only be allowed to access PAALs in a one-way direction. Would the three (3) spaces at the north portion of the site would have to go through the oil change area? Would the twenty (20) spaces south of the car wash have to proceed through the car wash? The handicap space does not appear to be maneuvered in and out of easily to exit the site without going through the service bay. Please explain. As is these spaces are not usable. The response provided does not indicate how someone whether an employee or customer maneuvers in and out of any of the angled spaces without having to go through a bay area or attempt a three or four point turn. Stacking areas interfere with parking access. The two front stacking spaces cannot maneuver into the car wash without running into the trash receptacle. The handicap space as shown will be difficult to maneuver in and out of. Parking and stacking as shown for this site does not work. Please revise 3. Twenty-three (23) spaces are not required for auto service. The number of bays provided require fourteen (14) spaces total. The require number of parking spaces required for the automative car wash is eight (8) not twelve (12). Vacuum bays cannot be counted toward required parking. Twenty parking spaces are not available on site. Please revise calculation to accurately reflect the amount of required and provided on site. 4. The location of the refuse container is not accessible. Stacking of cars blocks access and the location requires trash vehicles to back-up into a congested area. Please redesign. 5. Previous comment: Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development. Please show how this out pad connects to the main mall circulation and to the adjacent right-of-ways. There appears to be no connection from this site to the rest of the mall. DS 2-08.3.1 6. After review of previous development plans for the Tucson Mall and it's surrounding out pads it appears that cumulative expansions (not including those projects east of Stone Ave.) have exceeded twenty-five (25) percent since the Mall's initial development and as such may require the site to be brought up to current code requirements. The following information is provided for your review: a) Bk. 3 Pg. 43 Initial Mall square footage - 1,228,771 sq. ft. b) Bk. 8 Pg. 38 Olive Garden Expansion - 344 + sq. ft. c) Bk. 9 Pg. 22 Tony Romas - 5035 sq. ft. d) Bk. 10 Pg. 37 Dillards Expansion - 68,992 sq. ft. e) Bk. 11 Pg. 25 Mall Expansion - 246,377 sq. ft. f) Bk. 13 Pg. 99 Marie Calender - 5724 sq. ft. g) Bk. 19 Pg. 3 Mimis Café - 7010 sq ft. h) Oil Stop - 6475 sq. ft. Total = 27.66% building expansion 7. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0041dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan additional requested documents. |
| 01/10/2007 | 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 D06-0041 Tucson Oil Stop 01/10/07 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation C9-82-48, Ordinance No. 5651 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: January 24, 2007 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 (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: October 30, 2006 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Elevations and Color Palette REVIEWER: D. R.Corral 791-4505 DATE: January 9, 2007 |
| 01/16/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 11, 2007 To: Eduardo Gonzalez, Rick Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Tucson Mall, Oil Stop Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D06-041 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. 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 form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. This is the second request. Item #5 of the December 13th review letter has not been adequately addressed. “Sheet 2: Rick Engineering is proposing to connect the new private BCS to an existing 6” private sewer stub-out. A manhole will be required at this point, as there is a change in alignment and grade at the proposed point of connection, and this new manhole will be located within the City of Tucson’s Wetmore Road right of way. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department will not accept the existing 6” private sewer stub-out and the new manhole into the public sewer system, as their diesign standards require all new public sewers to be constructed of 8” pipe. Therefore, to make this connection, you will need to obtain written authorization from the City of Tucson (COT) Department of Transportation, to construct the new private manhole within the COT’s right of way. This office will not be able to approve this point and method (of connection) of location to the public sewer system (and therefore the development plan) until it receives a copy of this authorization.” Sheet 4: We have not received any documentation from your firm or from PCWMD Operations & Maintenance stating that the pipe (existing stub-out) that enters manhole 9811-13B is 8” in diameter against what we find in our records (6” pipe). Provide documentation which was used in justifying the change from 6” to 8” diameter pipe in this submittal. If the pipe is in fact 8” diameter, we will accept a new public manhole constructed over the pipe at the change in deflection and slope. Show the new public manhole. If the pipe is 6” diameter, the previous option remains. Or, as stated in Item #6 of your response, you may replace the 6” pipe with an 8” pipe. This solution, if used, will need to be shown on this development plan. Our reply, to Item #6, is that we will not approve the conceptual connection that is not accurately displayed on the plans. A possibly less expensive option would be the connection of the proposed Tucson Mall Oil Stop private sewer to the existing private sewer manhole, across the mall parking lot, to the northwest. 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 third (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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 |
| 01/22/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: D06-0041 TUCSON MALL OIL STOP/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: January 22, 2007 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: Correct 42-23 to 43-23 on Location Map. Provide a copy of the recorded deed for lot split prior to approval. jg |
| 02/01/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 1, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 121 E. Wetmore Rd. Tucson Mall Oil Stop Development Plan D06-0041 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 24 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan. The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan and does not recommend approval at this time. The following review comments must be addressed. Development Plan Comments: 1. Cut and fill quantities are not required for Development Plans however be advised that cut and fill quantities are required to approve the Development Plan as a Site Plan. Ensure the cut and fill quantities are added to the Development Plan prior to being approved as a Site Plan. 2. Sidewalks must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The comment re: Keynote 8 from the first review stated that the sidewalk was flush with the paving and no ramp was required at the handicap-loading zone. If the entire sidewalk as indicated is flush with the pavement, please show the means of separation from vehicular traffic. 3. Keynote 8 calls for a "Depressed 6" vertical curb". Please clarify. 4. Docket and Page of all easements must be shown prior to approval. 5. The location of the refuse area added to the Site Plan is not accepted due to lack of access and maneuverability. Submit a revised Development Plan with a detailed response letter detailing how each comment has been addressed. Further comments may be forthcoming following review of any revisions. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188 or suzanne.bohnet@tucsonaz.gov. Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate |
| 02/02/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 2, 2007 Eduardo Gonzalez Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D06-0041 Tucson Mall Oil Stop Development Plan Dear Eduardo: Your submittal of December 22, 2006 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 (TEP, ESD, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Addressing, Wastewater, DSD) Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. 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: 322-6956 dp-resubmittal |
| 02/02/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 172158 February 1, 2007 Rick Engineering Company, Inc Attn: Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez 1745 East River Road, Suite 101. Tucson, AZ 85718 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: SUBJECT: Tucson Mall Oil Stop - Resubmittal D06-0041 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted December 22, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan, we will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to Pima County Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Warren McElyea at 918-8268 should you have any technical questions. My telephone number is 918-8297. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/22/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |