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 - D07-0020
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/08/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/20/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 20, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Commercial building for Mead Investments Development Plan. The activity number is D07-0020. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 8th, 2007. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan review and Permit will be required. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.B. The above comment is from the previous review and it appears there is a typo in the list of recorded easements on sheet DP1.1. Revise accordingly. 2. Be advised if there is not existing sidewalk within the ROW, sidewalk must be provided. All new development must provide a 6' sidewalk along an arterial street, three feet from back of curb. DS 3-013.3.A., DS 2-05.2.4.L. 3. Provide the datum for the ground elevations; indicate City of Tucson field book number and page. DS 2-05.2.3.E. The above comment is from the previous review and has not been adequately addressed. Indicate in the basis of elevation statement if the datum is NGVD 1929 or NAVD 1988. 4. Indicate on sheet DP1.0 the cut and fill quantities. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 5. 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 the handicap access aisle. All accessible curb ramps 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 curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Provide a detail on the plan and provide the locations on the plan view. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 The above comment is from the first review and it is not clear if the comment has been addressed. The plan does not indicate existing sidewalks within the ROW. Please clarify if there are no sidewalks, be advised 6' sidewalks are required along an MS&R Road. That said detectable warnings are required on the sidewalk ramps. Revise and clarify appropriately. 6. Label the 75' half ROW, "Future 75' half ROW." Second request. DS 2-05.2.4.D.4. 7. From the street centerline of Tanque Verde Road provide a dimension to the future curb and sidewalk location. Label accordingly. Second request. DS 2-05.2.4.F. 8. Provide on the plan the locations of on-site and of-site acceptance points of 100-year discharge points that is found on figure 3, the onsite drainage plan. The above comment is from the previous review and has not been adequately addressed. Provide a general note on sheet DP1.1 that the 100-year discharge points of concentration can be found on DP1.2. |
| 11/21/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 21, 2007 To: Sam Robison, Robison Associates Architects 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: Commercial Building for Mead Investments, Inc. Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D07-0020 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 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. 2nd request. Sheet 3: Correct the IMS# for MH# 8692-03A. Sheet 2 & 3: The connection of the 6” private sewer to the 8” public sewer must be with a proposed manhole. Make this revision on the plan. A 4” private sewer line connected to the 8” public sewer would not require a manhole. 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 $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. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me . |
| 11/23/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D07-0020 Commercial Bldg for Mead Investments Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 20, 2007 DUE DATE: December 10, 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 note contour interval with the north arrow on all applicable sheets of the development plan. DS 2-05.2.1.H 2. Please add to general note 13 on sheet DP1.0 "Sec. 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ)". DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 3. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between a structure and any PAAL serving as a drive-through aisle. Please provide dimension on the DP. DS 3-05.2.2.B.4 4. Please revise the pedestrian path coming in from Tanque Verde Road. The striped area parallel to parking space 6 must be a four (4) foot wide raised sidewalk with a handicap ramp which includes truncated domes leading out to the crosswalk. DS 2-08.4.1 5. Please dimension the backup-spur at the end parking spaces on the east side of the site. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii, and will have a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. DS 3-05.2.2.D If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0020dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 11/23/2007 | 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: D07-0020 COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR MEAD INVESTMENTS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/20/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1.) 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 |
| 12/10/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 4, DP2.0 Trash enclosure detail requires 2 side wall protectors on each side of the enclosure to protect the walls from damage. Position front bollard/wall protector 2 ft from front of front gates and second 4 ft to center of front bollard. Each dumpster requires a 10 ft clear area between the side bollard and the center gate post. 2. Access and maneuverability within the development works. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/10/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 10, 2007 Sam H. Robison, Architect Robison Associates Architects 759 West Panorama Road Tucson, Arizona 85704 Subject: D07-0020 Commercial Building for Mead Investments, Inc. Development Plan Dear Sam: Your submittal of November 8, 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 (Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 742-1285 |