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 - D06-0050
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/23/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/31/2007 | AVERA1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * All enclosures must comply w/development standards section 6 "Solid Waste Disposal". Requires a 10ft clear between the rear wall protector and the front gates and between both side wall protectors. * On the east side of complex the east enclosure does not provide the required 14' x 40' approach due to addjacent parking spaces encroachment. Also, identify rectangular enclosure located northeast of refuse enclosures. * Identify purpose and/or use of stall on westside of complex directly north of refuse enclosures. |
| 01/31/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/08/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 07, 2007 To: John Lupo, P.E. Castro Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Engg. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department Subject: Pavilions at 5151 E Broadway Blvd Development Plan – 2nd Submittal, D06-050 The drawings for the proposed Development Plan 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. This project will be adding 855 FUE to the sewer system. Provide a letter from PCWMD Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that the treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf 2. SHEET 1. Add a General Note that states THE ONSITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWER LINES ARE PROPOSED. 3. SHEET 1. In the LEGEND, change the call out for EXISTING SEWER to EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER. 4. SHEET 3. Use the same line type for the existing public sewer in Rosemont Blvd. as shown in the Legend for EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER.. 5 SHEET 3 Show where the existing private sewer line connects to the existing public sewer. 6. SHEET 3. Show the size of the existing private sewer. 7. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 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 the response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project File |
| 02/12/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 12, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 5151 E. Broadway Blvd. The Pavilions Development Plan D06-0050 (Second Review) T14S, R14E, Section 11 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan, and we do not recommend approval at this time. The Drainage Addendum to the Drainage Statement is approved. The following review comments must be addressed. Development Plan Comments: 1. Provide the public right-of-way recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, existing/proposed/future curbs, existing/proposed/future curb cuts and existing/proposed/future sidewalks (D.S. 2-03.2.3.D). 2. Label existing curbs and sidewalks as "Existing/Future", if applicable. 3. Detail A2 on sheet 2 of 4 calls out a 4' sidewalk. Please change that dimension to 6'. 4. There are two handicapped parking locations and two loading locations on sheet 3 that show a symbol for truncated domes but are not called out with a keynote or noted that they will be constructed per Standard Details. Please clarify. 5. The handicapped parking spaces on sheet 4 do not call out or reflect the standard truncated dome handicapped access ramp. Please correct. 6. The legend calls for the existing private sewer line to be dashed with an "S" between the dashes. This is not shown on the Development Plan, sheets 3 and 4. Please correct this. 7. Remove the Bluestake symbols from the legend that are not actually called out on the Development Plan (all but BST) or call out as appropriate. 8. To ensure the Development Plan can be stamped as a Site Plan in the future, provide the estimated quantities of cut and fill, called out separately measured in cubic yards, even if that quantity is zero. 9. Sheet 2 shows two "Typical Handicap Parking Spaces" details D2 and E2 however only detail E2 shows the correct placement of truncated domes. Remove detail D2. 10. The following details are not called out on the Development Plan sheets 3 and 4: F2, G2, H2, I2, K2 and L2. Add these details to the Development Plan as appropriate or note the detail in the keynotes. 11. Reference the enclosed "Container Enclosure" detail for the refuse enclosure and change detail J2 to match. 12. Keynotes 11, 15, 21, 26 and 27 are not called out on the Development Plan sheets 3 and 4. 13. Keynotes 24 and 25 need to be switched, either in the callout or in the keynotes. Also, Keynotes 24 and 25 (SVT for Broadway) are called out unnecessarily along Rosemont and incorrectly on Broadway sheet 4. 14. Clarify what the symbols "G" on a line (along Broadway), "SGN" and "MAG" are in the legend. 15. The Pedestrian Access Ramp on the right side of sheet 3 is incorrectly called out as keynote 8 (vertical curb). 16. Keynote 14 is called out in a space located next to the Rosemont driveway. Please clarify. 17. The handicap access ramps on sheet 4 from does not call out a standard nor does it reflect the truncated domes. Please correct. 18. Clarify what the space is on the right side of sheet 4 that shows a decorative CMU screen wall, and 8' tall masonry screen wall and sheet metal opaque screen gates. 19. One of the three loading zones on page 4 will need to be moved as loading zones cannot be blocked as shown. 20. The dimensions for the refuse enclosures on page 4 are incorrect. Reference the attached for enclosure details and ensure enough space exists (and necessary maneuverability) to place the refuse pickup locations there. 21. From the first review, I inadvertently made an error and said to include the word "minimum" in the statement for water harvesting. Please remove the word "minimum" from that statement. Please submit a revised Development Plan with a detailed response letter detailing how each comment has been addressed. Also, please submit a complete Drainage Report that includes the issues addressed by the Drainage Addendum. This is to ensure we have a complete report for our records. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188 or suzanne.bohnet@tucsonaz.gov. Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate |
| 02/13/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D06-0050 PAVILIOMS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 2/12/07 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: Approved with the following condition: 1.) Delete direction from all street names in Location Map of mylar. 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. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. es |
| 02/15/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. |
| 02/21/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0050 Pavilions Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 1, 2007 DUE DATE: February 21, 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 provide the recordation data for both Broadway Boulevard and Rosemont Boulevard. DS 2-05.2.3.C 2. Please revise detail M/2 and G/2 to include Detectable warnings (truncated domes). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width the area that is flush with the pavement. Please revise detail D/2 to include Detectable warnings (truncated domes). All accessible curb ramps leading to accessible aisles for handicap parking 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 flush surface. The stairways emptying out onto the PAAL from the parking garage to access buildings to the south shall also provide truncated domes measured back from the PAAL. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. The hatch pattern used to denote truncated domes should be added to the legend. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 3. Please add note to detail I/2 that handicap signage will be posted at a height of no less than seven (7) feet. ANSI & TDOT 4. Wheel-stop curbing provided shall be a distance of two and one-half (2 1/2) feet from the front of the motor vehicle parking spaces. Please revise parking typicals D/2 and E/2 to indicate this distance. Parking detail F/2 should also reflect the use of wheel stop curbing when needed to prevent vehicles from damaging landscape, wall, or buildings, or overhanging adjacent sidewalks areas reducing them to less than four (4) feet in width. DS 3-05.2.3.C 5. Please dimension the PAAL from the edge of the off-street loading space to the edge of motor vehicle parking to assure that the PAALs minimum width is maintained. Minimum two-way PAAL width is twenty-four (24) feet. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 6. Broadway requires a setback of the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height of the building wall measured from the back of future curb. The width of the perimeter yard is the distance measured horizontally from the back of future curb to the face of each exterior building wall at the wall's highest point. On sheet 3 of 4 the measurement given to the top of parapet is twenty-seven (27) feet yet the setback provided is only twenty-six (26) feet. The required setback is twenty-seven (27) feet. Please revise. LUC 3.2.6.3 & LUC 3.2.6.5.B 7. A four (4) foot sidewalk will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces intervene. The placement of a proposed planter along the building's east side removed the sidewalk previously shown. A sidewalk is required in this area and is to connect to the proposed sidewalks north and south. DS 2-08.4.1.C 8. Revise general note 2 by removing the "per LUC sections and the development designator". Add to Food Service "Subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.6.C" and add to Financial Services "Subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.5.C." LUC 2.6.2.2.A.1 & 7 9. Please revise general note 3 correcting the required setback from Broadway as "the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height from back of curb" and correcting the required setback from Rosemont as either "the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height from back of curb" or "from back of adjacent travel lane" based on the ADT for Rosemont. The previous setback information given by staff for Rosemont was incorrect. LUC 2.8.3.6 & LUC 3.2.6.5.B 10. Correct spelling of the word "each" in the mixed use parking note. 11. Please add to general note 15 the handicap parking calculations as provided in applicant's response, "twenty-three (23) required twenty-four (24) provided of which four (4) required to be van accessible, fifteen (15) provided". 2003 IBC sec. 1106.1 & 1106.5 12. Please correct spelling of "ground" in proposed expansion calculations. 13. Within the building footprints please add the proposed heights and dimensions the actual building footprints. DS 2-05.2.4.N 14. The GFA used for the parking calculations and expansion does not match-up and is confusing. The expansion calculation should provide the pre-existing GFA, the GFA that is being demolished, the new GFA (including outside dining areas) and finally the new GFA that is in excess after getting credited for the demo'ed portion. (pre-existing GFA - demo'ed GFA = Remainder GFA then New GFA - Remainder GFA = Expansion) The GFA that is attributed to the expansion will be used to calculate additional parking required. Please call me at 791-5550 ext. 1197 to discuss the calculations. 15. Please provide the square footage of the outdoor dining area. This should be included in the expansion calculation of GFA for restaurant use in determining parking requirements. 16. Please provide as a note the number of off-street loading spaces required and the number being provided along with required size of the spaces based on revised GFA as requested in review note 14. Square footage allocated to the new food service would use Table 3, office would use Table 5. LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 & 3.4.5.5 17. Tandem off-street loading space as shown for the existing building cannot be used. The space also blocks access to solid waste containers. Please relocate to a more appropriate location on site that allows access and maneuverability to the space. 18. Please correct the bicycle parking calculations to accurately reflect the correct percentages and number of spaces required. Food service requires bicycle parking at a ratio of eight (8) percent with fifty (50) percent Class 1 (13 spaces) and fifty (50) percent Class 2 (13 spaces) of the provided motor vehicle parking spaces. 19. Please add applicant's response provided which indicates the location and type of postal service as a note on the development plan DS 2-05.2.4.V 20. 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\D06-0050dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 02/23/2007 | 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 D06-0050 Pavilions 02/22/07 ( ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C09-68-70 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Broadway-Craycroft Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: February 21, 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 ( X ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: November 29, 2006 ( X ) No Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( X ) Architectural Elevations and Renderings REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 2/14/07 |
| 03/02/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 2, 2007 John Lupo Castro Engineering Corp. 3580 West Ina Road, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85741 Subject: D06-0050 The Pavilions Development Plan Dear John: Your submittal of January 23, 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (ESD, Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, 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: 293-2115 dp-resubmittal |