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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0004
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/23/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/24/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/06/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/07/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0004 Accurate Automotive facility 02/07/07 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-05 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 02/21/07 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 (XXXX) 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: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 02/01/07 |
| 02/08/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#176871 February 7, 2007 Dear Mr. Gregor: SUBJECT: Accurate Automotive Facility D07-0004 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted February 1, 2007 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc:P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (Email) N. DiMaria, Tucson Electric Power |
| 02/09/2007 | AVERA1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfills within 1000ft of development. * Service access and approach to enclosure and enclossure detail will work. * No provisions shown or discussed for recycling. |
| 02/13/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D07-0004 ACCURATE AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY/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. 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. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ES |
| 02/21/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Do not use the revision cloud for a portion of a new drawing. The Landscape plan received is different from the plan approved by CDRC and the Landscape Section specifically on 1/24/05. The changes to the previous plan necessitate the following comments not directly related to the building expansion. 2) 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 3) A fifteen (15) foot minimum height clearance, free of any overhead obstructions (wires, branches, etc.), must be provided above the refuse collection site. As drawn the tree overhangs the storage/collection area. Revise the plans as necessary. DS 6-01.2.1.B.1.b 4) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers (previous DP case#, rezoning, etc.) to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 5) Revise the landscape plan to provide a summary of the native plants required per the native plant preservation plan and to show individual transplants and mitigation plantings. Resubmittal of the Development/Landscape plan is required. |
| 02/27/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 23, 2007 To: Steven Gregor, Gregor 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: Accurate Automotive Facility, 8283 E. Bowline Road Development Plan - 1st Submittal D07-004 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. This project will be tributary to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantaño Interceptor. This appears to be a square footage increase of an existing building. It is not clear if any new fixture unit equivalents are proposed. Per written guidance provided by the PCWMD Development Services Section, sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the downstream public sewerage system for this small project, and a formal capacity response letter from the PCWMD will not be required. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D07-004, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #14 so that it states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 2: Keynotes #14 states that a 4” BCS is PROPOSED. If the BCS currently serves the existing building, the Keynote needs to be corrected to state that the BCS is EXISTING. Revise any proposed and existing private sewer BCS line-types and cleanouts on this sheet and in the Legend block, on sheet 1, to reflect the correct status of these elements. 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 $100.00 (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 |
| 03/07/2007 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: March 7, 2007 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Accurate Automotive Facility, 8285 E. Bowline Rd. Development Plan D07-0004 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 21 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Statement. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Statement (DS) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. 3. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. 4. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. The masonry wall located at the East side of the entrance is in the SVT. The re-zoning condition calls out for a 36", however per D.S. 3-01.5.A.1. the wall can only be 30" in height. Revise as required. 5. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 6. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 7. Location and orientation of existing major physical features, such as railroad tracks and drainageways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.22. 8. Show Development plan number (D07-0004) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 9. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 10. "A grading permit will be required for this project. Submit 4 sets of grading upon completion upon the submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". 11. Adhere to all rezoning conditions. This may apply to the requirement of a Hydrology Report. Drainage Statement: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DS. 2. A Drainage Statement is a brief description of drainage conditions applicable for a site which are not affected by 100 year flows of 100 cfs, of more……per S.M.D.D.F.M., chap. II, 2.1.2. The DS must be submitted along with the site plan and accepted with the approval of the grading plan. 3. The content and format of the Drainage Statement should follow S.M.D.D.F.M., chap. II, 2.2. 4. Show the project address or administration address on the cover sheet of the DS. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/8285 E. Bowline Rd. CDRC |
| 03/08/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D07-0004 8283 E. Bowline Road, Accurate Automotive Repair Facility Development Plan, Revision - revision is greater than 25% GFA expansion 1st review, full code compliance TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 7, 2007 DUE DATE: February 21, 2007 COMMENTS: 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 January 22, 2008. 2. This project was reviewed for full code compliance, as the expansion of building area proposed is greater than 25% of the size of the existing building. The codes applicable to this project are the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). This project was reviewed for requirements/content listed in DS 2-05. 3. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.2, place the development plan number D07-0004 near title block. 4. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, ensure all easements are on the plan with type and recordation. 5. Per DS 2-05.2.4.A, please give a history of all splits/reconfigurations with city approval. Also, the final plat for this subdivision indicates that the lot area is only 20,460 square feet - yet the plan shows a possible 8,000 square feet gain of land area - please help identify if any changes or reconfigurations were done. 6. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3, with regards to vehicular use area: A) clarify if a wall/fence is to be provided at the north side of the site - if so, a 2' setback from the PAAL to the wall is needed per DS 3-05 B) dimension distance between screen wall along Bowline and adjacent back up spur, 3' is required C) dimension distance between proposed fencing and parking spaces in the middle of the parking lot - per 3-05, a parking space width should be 10' if abutting a vertical object over 6". D) Clarify if note 30 on the plan is in the correct place - it appears that there is a PROPOSED sidewalk outside of the future curb and that is not the correct place for it - are you making a current sidewalk and then in the future will have a future sidewalk?- 7. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, with regards to building setbacks/building issues: WHAT IS ADDITION TO BE USED FOR? GARAGE? OFFICE/STORAGE? EMPLOYEES ONLY OR PUBLIC ACCESS A) I acknowledge the building setbacks meet code B) For record purposes, please show the actual building setbacks from the following: 1- the back of the future curb of Sarnoff at a distance of the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall. 2- From the nearest edge of travel lane (is there a parking lane?) off Bowline Road the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall 3- From the north property line (is it at 0?) 4- From the west property line C) provide dimensions for the building footprint for records and issuing building permits D) call out all door entries - to new addition too E) call out height of new expansion - is it also 20 like existing building? 8. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, with regards to pedestrian circulation: A) check that the sidewalk proposed in the right of way is in the correct position - in front of 'future' curb? B) Provide truncated domes (early warning devices) per ANSI 705.5 - at all ramps and where transitioning from vehicular use area to pedestrian area. Because the parking area slopes upward to meet the sidewalk, a 2' wide strip of truncated domes needs to be provided along the full length of the sidewalk that abuts the parking area (from fence to screen wall). C) Provide pedestrian route to trash enclosure D) Per discussion with Bret 03/08/07, the new addition is an office area for the auto repair place. This use area requires a sidewalk to be provided between the new addition and the PAAL. E) Provide a ramp with truncated domes at corner of new addition area to new sidewalk E) Provide a ramp with truncated domes at walk way where sidewalk transitions to pedestrian refuge in front of garage bays F) Provide a continuous pedestrian route - accessible to office addition area to front existing office. (garage areas will cause safety issue if crossing accessible route) G) Further review comments may be forthcoming on this issue 9. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, with regards to loading zones: A) please show the maneuverability of the loading zone and see engineering comments 10. Please provide a note that the gates will remain open during business hours to allow access to all required parking. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, please provide a note that states the fine for illegally parking in a handicapped space is $518.00, and change note E on Typical parking detail 2/2 to read city of Tucson standards rather than Pima County. 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, and LUC 3.3.4, bicycle parking is not required for this use, however if provided shall meet DS 2-09. Please provide a typical detail drawing for the bike rack and the 5' clear area on one side of it. 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.T, see Environmental Services comments for solid waste collection comments. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.U, please provide a separate response letter advising how this project meets all requirements of the rezoning case C9-85-95. 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V, please show the location of postal service boxes. 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, please show the dimensions/heights of signage - or a note that states signage permits by others. 17. Please remove the reference to a subdivision in note 4, change to site area. 18. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon responses provided. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-004 accurate automotive.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 03/09/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 9, 2007 Steven J. Gregor P.E. Gregor Engineering, Inc. 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D07-0004 Accurate Automotive Facility Development Plan Dear Steven: 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (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: 319-1181 dp-resubmittal |