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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/26/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0050 The Pavilions Development Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2007 DUE DATE: May 15, 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. The PAAL from the edge of the off-street loading space to the edge of motor vehicle parking has been dimensioned as twenty-three (23) feet. Minimum two-way PAAL width is twenty-four (24) feet. PAAL reduction would require Board of Adjustment approval prior to Development Plan Approval. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 2. Please remove from general note 2 "Subject to LUC 2.6.2.2.A.1 & 7" from Food Service and "& 7" from Food Service. LUC 2.6.2.2.A.1 & 7 3. Please identify the location of the required 5th off-street loading space. Only four could be found on the development plan. 4. 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. 5. Please change existing to "proposed" for total proposed development expansion calculations. 6. Please explain why total GFA used for parking calculation does not match total expansion. There appears to be a difference of 32,097 square feet 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\D06-0050dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 04/30/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 30, 2007 To: John Lupo, P.E. Castro Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department _____________________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Pavilions at 5151 E Broadway Blvd Development Plan – 3rd 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. A capacity response letter has not been received. PCWMD has requested additional information but has not yet received it in order to release the capacity response letter. Sheet 1: In the Legend the line for Public Sewer appears to be solid but is dashed in the plan on Sheet 3. Sheet 3 & 4: There does not appear to be any proposed sewer on site. Also there is no symbol for the proposed sewer in the legend on Sheet 1. 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 4th 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. |
| 05/08/2007 | 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. |
| 05/11/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 11, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Pavilion Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0050. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on April 17th, 2007 Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Please note a different reviewer than the previous reviewer has conducted this review. 2. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. This project is subject to intersection widening per the MS & R Map. Refer to the diagram located on the lower left hand corner of the MS & R Map found on the following web page, http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/maps/city/msr.pdf. Label the site plan accordingly and show dimensions. It is acknowledged this comment was not stated on the first review, however this information must still be provided on the plan. 2. It is not clear if the shown ROW dimensions for Rosemont Boulevard and Broadway Boulevard is for the existing (current), future or both. If the existing and future ROW are coincident the dimension should be labeled as, "Existing and Future." DS 2-05. 3. Be advised if the ROW for Rosemont Blvd. and Broadway Blvd. is not built out to the future ROW, future sight visibility triangles will be required. It appears after reviewing the ROW plan online the ROW for both streets is not built out to provide the intersection widening. Clarify in the response letter and provide appropriate revisions. 4. Indicate accessible ramps at the entrance/exit drive for Rosemont Blvd. 5. Identify the square adjacent to the trash enclosures located along Rosemont Blvd. If it is an easement, identify type, indicate if public or private and provide recordation data. 6. The recently submitted grading application provides fill quantities at over 50 cubic yards. The development plan indicates the cut and fill quantities will be zero. The documents should provide calculations at minimum are similar. Revise the development to put an estimated amount. 7. On sheet 4 there is a conflict with the location of the south loading space and the solid waste enclosures. Revise the plan to show the loading space symbol not overlapping into the solid waste enclosure space. It gives the appearance the loading truck will back out into the solid waste enclosure. 8. Per Development Standard 6-01.4.2.C.1., food service establishments are required to provide a sewer connected drain in the center of the concrete slab to facilitate container cleaning. Revise detail G on sheet 6 of 8 to show a drain and the site plan view to show connection to the sanitary sewer system. 9. Revise the development to reflect the development plan showing the 25' curb returns for the ingress/egress along Rosemont Blvd. Traffic Engineering approved the development plan that showed 25' curb returns for the ingress/egress along Rosemont Blvd. Engineering will not approve the development plan until this revision is made. 10. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten-year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E |
| 05/17/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Refuse enclosure detail on sheet 2 Gates must be designed with the ability to be secured in the open position. DS 6-01.4.2.4 Recommend the following annotation for gate design: a. Construct door frame using 3" x 3"x 1/4" thk. welded steel angle. Face with type B deck, with positive locking and (bayonet) anchors. b. Quantity of four 1" dia. x 6" long galvanized pipe to be flush with concrete. Locate so anchor bolts can secure gates in the open and clsoed positions. 2. Gates must not be mounted so they encroach within the required 10ft inside clear. DS 6-01.4.B Recommend mounting gates to face of CMU wall and constructing so they will open a minimum of 180 degrees when at all possible. 3. Ensure side and rear wall protectors have a separation between them and the CMU wall. Recommend a minimum separation of 6 inches, with no less than 2 inches. 4. Clarify exit point for service vehicle when leaving northbound from enclosures on the west side of complex. DS 6-01.3.1.A 5. Recommend repositioning east enclosure at the east side of complex to a 60 degree angle so the approach is not in conflict with the parking spaces. West enclosure is okay as is. DS 6-01.4.1.C ; 6.01.3.1.A. Make all necessary changes for resubmittal. |
| 05/18/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 18, 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 April 17, 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) 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 |