Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0015
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/16/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/20/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D07-0015 THOMAS CATTANY ARCHITECTURE, LLC LEMARR PROPERTIES LLC -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 04/23/2007 | 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 D07-0015 LeMarr Properties LLC 04/20/07 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 05/14/07 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: 04/20/07 |
| 04/24/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: April 24, 2007 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: Patricia Gehlen SUBJECT: D07-0015 Lemarr Properties: Development Plan Review(4-17-07) Parks and Recreation has no comments. |
| 04/25/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D07-0015 LeMarr Properties LLC Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 25, 2007 DUE DATE: May 14, 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. 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 April 16, 2008. 2. Please add the following notes to meet requirements of the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) ACD-2 and NCD-A-65-70 Ldn: a) "No more than twenty (20) employees per acre of the site area at any time may be accommodated by intention, design, or in fact." b) "The maximum FAR is 0.30 of the project site area." c) "The Final Plat Brown/Rita Ranch, Lots 1-42, Bk. 54, Pg. 84 was recorded June 7, 2001 prior to January 1, 2005 allowing lot 7, which is less than five (5) acres, to be developed in conformance with all other requirements specified in LUC Sec. 2.8.5.8.B.1, 2., and 3." d) "Offices on site will be sound attenuated, to reduce the interior noise level by twenty-five (25) decibels, to 40-45 Ldn, per DS9-05.0." 3. Within the project location map please label the S.P.R.R. to the south and the Drainageway to the north of the project site. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2 4. Please add the annexation case number C9-84-84 in the lower right corner of the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. DS 2-05.2.1.K 5. Case number D07-0015 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 6. Please revise general note 2 replacing "light manufacturing" with "General Manufacturing, subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.5.1.B, F, G, & H". DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 7. The property is subject to annexation conditions for C9-84-84 Ordinance Number 6143. Please list all applicable conditions of annexation on the development plan and provide a separate response letter detailing how compliance to those conditions have been met. DS 2-05.2.2.B.7 8. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G 9. Please revise parking detail changing the dimension for the wheel-stop curbing to front of parking space. Wheel-stop curbing is to be placed two and one-half (2 1/2) feet from the front of the parking space. DS 3-05.2.3.C.2 10. All accessible routes (sidewalks/pedestrian paths) shall consist of a walking surface with a slope not steeper than 1:20. The cross slope of a walking surface shall not be steeper than 1:48. All slopes are to be indicated on the plan/plat and associated details. ANSI 403.3 11. Please provide detail of required curb ramps. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings of vehicle use areas and streets where accessible routes are required. They shall be located so they do 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 12. 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 13. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. 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 14. Please provide a detail of required signage for handicap accessible parking. The detail shall include verbiage as required by TDOT and be posted a minimum of seven (7) feet from the top of curb to the bottom of the sign. 15. Please add note to development plan that gates will remain open during normal business hours to allow access to required parking. 16. Please dimension the sidewalk area between the planter and building to assure that the minimum width of four (4) feet for the sidewalk is maintained. DS 2-08.5.1.A 17. In the parking calculations please label the required and provided handicap space as being van accessible. 18. Please provide the FAR calculations on sheet 1 of 3. Per LUC Sec. 2.8.5.8.B.1.c the maximum FAR is 0.30 of the project site. A FAR greater than that would be permitted only if a protected development right plan, was approved by Mayor and Council specifically for such development prior to June 30, 2005. LUC 2.8.5.8.B.1.c & LUC 2.8.5.8.B.3.c 19. Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Class 2 or short term parking must be made accessible to the public as a two point support rack while Class 1 or long term parking is generally for use by employees, providing a covered, secured facility. Class 1 may be substituted for Class 2 on a space-per-space basis, provided the Class 2 parking is not reduced more than fifty (50) percent. LUC 3.3.7.8.B 20. Multi-rack spaces will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 21. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2). 22. Please denote any outdoor storage area or site area dedicated to principal use, but excluding vehicle use areas. The area should be dimensioned with the square footage provided. This is used to calculate the require number of off-street loading spaces in addition to GFA. Please revise according. LUC 3.4.3.3 and LUC 3.4.5.1 23. Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.V 24. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. DS 2-05.2.4.W & LUC 3.5.4.26 25. 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. 74960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0015dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 04/25/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | April 25, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0015 PROJECT NAME: Lemarr Properties PROJECT ADDRESS: 8233 S Camino De Cafe PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Show and label the existing SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. 3. Place the proposed security gate far enough away from Camino De Café to provide enough space for a vehicle to queue at the gate in the throat of the driveway in a manner that the queuing vehicle does not disrupt the flow of traffic along Camino De Café. 4. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/02/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 180559 May 2, 2007 Thomas Cattany Architecture, LLC Attn: Thomas Cattany 1202 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 110 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Dear Mr Cattany : SUBJECT: LeMarr Properties LLC D07-0015 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted April 23, 2007. 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 City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Warren McElyea at 918-8268 should you have any technical questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist hn Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) T. Stocksdale, Tucson Electric Power |
| 05/03/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY WASTE WATER May 3, 2007 To: Tom Cattany, Thomas Cattany Architecture 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: LeMarr Properties LLC Development Plan - 1st Submittal D07-0015 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. 1. 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 required 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. 2. All Sheets: Add the case number, D07-0015, 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. 3. Sheet 1& 2: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 1. Also the line types between existing and proposed should be readily distinguishable. 4. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that 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. 5. The IMS #'s for all existing manholes need to be shown on plan. Also the existing sewer line/manholes need to be marked as public. The invert elevations given are not correct please revise. 6. Show directional flow arrows on existing public sewer and private BCS. 7. The existing public sewer line/manholes on plan need to be marked as (PER G-199-131). Also the pipe size of 8" needs to be shown. 8. The BCS needs to show size/slope/length and material. Also cleanouts need to be clearly marked w/rim and invert elevations. There should be a cleanout at every bend. The method of connection to the existing sewer should be shown. 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 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00(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 . |
| 05/07/2007 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D07-0015, LEMARR PROPERTIES LLC DEVEL PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, #405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981 Web: www.PAGnet.org and www.RTAmobility.com |
| 05/07/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/08/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the zoning case number C9-84-84 to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 3) Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each ten motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof per LUC 3.7.2.3.1. Revise the canopy tree calculation on the landscape plan. 4) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 5) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area per LUC 3.7.4.3.B. Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods. Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. DS 2-07.2.2.C 6) A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site per DS 3-05.2.3.C. Revise the plans as necessary to show the required barriers. 7) The site is required to include screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise as necessary. 8) Plants used for screening purposes may not be smaller than a five (5) gallon can size when planted. The plants may be aligned, or unevenly spaced, but must provide a continuous screen at maturity within two (2) years. Revise the plans to specify at least the minimum required size for screening plants and provide additional plants to provide a continuous screen. 9) Caesalpinia gillessii should not be used for screening purpose as it has a tendency to lose foliage over the winter months. The screen is required to provide an opaque barrier designed to conceal parking areas from street and public view. 10) The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. The use of vegetation to satisfy the screen requirement is allowed only to provide for alternative treatment and is not in any way meant to imply that the vegetative screen can also be used to meet the landscape requirement. Exclude any plants used for screening from the vegetative coverage calculations. DS 2-06.3.7 11) Hedges and other vegetative screens shall not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border per LUC 3.7.3.2.C.2. Revise the landscape plan to identify screening elements and locate in compliance with the code section. 12) Revise the street landscape border calculations to provide the required number of trees and percentage of groundcover. The border length is the length of the property line along the street minus the ingress/egress (100-24=76). The calculations for the number of canopy trees and amount vegetative coverage require revision. (1 tree per 33 linear feet of landscape border and 50% of 7600 sq. ft.). 13) The Native Plant Application has not been approved. The photos included show what appears to be a protected native plant. Please obtain a statement from a plant professional that clarifies the request for exception. Although the application includes numerous good quality photos of the site, they do not sufficiently document all plants on the site DS 2-15.2.0 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 05/09/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 6, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: LeMarr Properties Development Plan D07-0015 (First Review) T15S, R15E, Section 27 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan The development plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and we do not recommend approval at this time. The following comments must be addressed: 1. Provide dimensions for the Sight Visibility Triangles. 2. Provide sufficient proposed grades on the site and existing grades on the adjacent properties to show how the site drainage will work. Show roof drainage directions. Show how positive drainage from the building will be achieved. 3. Provide representative details for the proposed grades at the project boundaries including the existing grades on the adjacent sites to demonstrate how the proposed grades on the project will function with the adjacent properties. 4. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.837.4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 05/10/2007 | 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: D07-0015 LEMARR PROPERTIES/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: May 9, 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: Add recording Book and Page to Brown/Rita Ranch in Title Block. Label adjacent lot numbers. jg |
| 05/14/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 05/15/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/15/2007 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/17/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Require adequate maneuverability for service vehicle. DS 6-01.3.1.A. Approach and maneuverability to and from enclosure area is tight. Recommend constructing enclosure gates to the face of the CMU wall with the ability to open aminimum of 180 degrees. This will allow the service vehicle to approach and back-up directly to and from the enclosure without the gates restricting initial movement. Or move the enclosure 5ft back. 2. Clarify security gate access for service vehicle. Driver must not be required to leave vehicle while obstructing public right-of-way. 3. Trash enclosure detail : Annotate required materials for securing gate in open position. Example, "quantity of four 1in. dia. x 6in. long galvanized pipe to be flush with concrete, for drop bolts to allow gates to be secured in open and closed postions". Locate within enclosure detail as well. Make all corrections prior to resubmittal. |
| 06/07/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 7, 2007 Thomas Cattany Thomas Cattany Architecture, LLC 1202 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 110 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D07-0015 Lemarr Properties LLC Development Plan Dear Thomas: 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 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Traffic, Zoning, TEP, Wastewater, Landscape, Engineering, Addressing, ESD, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (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: None provided dp-resubmittal |