Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0026
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/25/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/27/2007 | DBELL1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | |
| 07/02/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 07/03/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D07-0026 SWAIM ASSOCIATES, LTD THE MINI TIME MACHINE -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 07/09/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#183961 July 9, 2007 Swain Associates, LTD Attn: Kevin Barber 7350 E Speedway Blvd, 210 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Dear Mr. Barber: SUBJECT: The Mini Time Machine D07-0026 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted June 26, 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 the facilities and easements must be depicted on the 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 for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Warren McElyea, at 918-8268 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: DSD_CDRC@Tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 07/12/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 12, 2007 To: Robert Suarez RS 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 Environment Quality Subject: The Mini Time Machine, Museum of Miniatures Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D07-026 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. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D07-026, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. Sheet 1 : Eliminate General Note #31. 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. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #22 to read as follows: Add a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 2: Show the sewer directional flow arrows on the sewer lines shown on plan. Sheet 2: The rim and invert elevations are missing on the manholes shown on plan. Sheet 2: Mark the existing public sewer as public. Sheet 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. The sewer line shown running along the east edge of property is private and should be shown as such. Sheet 2: The public sewer line which runs north just east of property is not shown on plan. Sheet 2: The HCS shown on plan should be marked as private BCS. Also the slope/length/size and material of pipe should be described. 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. |
| 07/12/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 1, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Elliot Electronics Supply Development Plan D07-0026(First Review) T13S, R14E, Section 27 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Revised Drainage Report 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: Development Plan Comments: 1. The drainage report indicates that water harvesting will be maximized. Show on the development plan how water harvesting will be maximized. This should include showing how drainage will be directed to water harvesting areas. Indicate that the areas that are to receive desert seed will be used for water harvesting unless they are to remain undisturbed. Any areas to remain undisturbed should be delineated on the development plan. 2. There has been a request to waive retention for this project. On-site retention may be waived if water harvesting is maximized for this project. Water harvesting areas must be graded to be fairly level to distribute the water evenly. 3. Provide contours for adjacent properties and rights-of-way for a distance of 100 feet to establish drainage patterns from adjacent properties. 4. Show maneuverability for the loading zone. Clearly show that an appropriate design vehicle will be able to safely enter and leave the proposed loading zone location. 5. Clearly label the proposed entrance gates. In order for the entrance to be gated, provision must be provided to allow vehicles to turn around on site so they do not back into the street if the gates are closed. Drainage Report Comments: 6. TDOT's MapGuide site indicates that the site is type C soils. Revise all hydrological calculations to be consistent with this soil type or provide justification for using a different soil type. 7. Revise the retention volume estimate to use the 5-year runoff coefficients. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520..837.4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 07/18/2007 | 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: D07-0026 THE MINI TIME MACHINE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 7/17/07 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: 1.) Please provide information on any existing structures and if they will remain. 2.) 4491 E. Camp Lowell Drive is an incorrect address and will need to be changed to the correct hundred block. es |
| 07/20/2007 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D07-0026, MINI TIME MACHINE, DEVEL PLAN COMMENT: (1) NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS (2) NO TRIP GENERATION DATA FOR THIS LANDUSE Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: NA PM Peak: NA Please call if you have questions 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 |
| 07/23/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC development plan case number (S07-026) to all sheets of the landscape plan, NPP plan, and development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2. Clarify the descrepancy in the wall height and location along the Camp Lowell frontage. The development plan shows an 8-foot stucco wall at the front of the landscape border, which is not allowed. The landscape plan shows an existing 6-foot high wall in sections, setback within the landscape border, approximately 3 or 4 feet (by scale) from the back of the landscape border. Dimension this wall from the back of the landscape border and label its correct height and location on the development plan and the landscape plan. |
| 07/24/2007 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 07/24/2007 9:13 AM >>> No comment |
| 07/25/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | July 25, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0026 PROJECT NAME: The Mini Time Machine PROJECT ADDRESS: 4415 E Fort Lowell Rd 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. Call out the curb radius along Camp Lowell Drive. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 3. 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. 4. The Traffic Statement is acceptable to Traffic Engineering. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/26/2007 | 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 D07-0026 The Mini Time Machine () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-06-20 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Northside GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/24/087 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: 07/23/07 |
| 07/30/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 1, dumpster pad plan. A. Requires a 10 ft X 10 ft inside clear service area between the rear & side wall protection & front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B B. Refuse enclosure requires gates per DS 6-01.4.2.B and must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open position during service and when closed. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Demonstrate within detail and include annotation. i.e. "positive locking with (bayonet) anchors, QTY - 4, 1in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete." Recommend enclosure gate be equipped with the ability to open a minimum of 180 degrees and position anchors to secure open as such. 2. Required 14 ft X 40 ft clear approach appears to be in slight conflict with vertical curbed island. Recommend positioning enclosure slightly counter clockwise so service vehicle has a straight approach to refuse enclosure coming out of left turn. Please correct on resubmittal. |
| 07/30/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Mini Time Machine Museum of Miniatures D07-0026 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 23, 2007 DUE DATE: July 24, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a separate response letter for zoning, 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 June 25, 2008. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1. List the name, address, and telephone number of the developer of the project. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.1. List as a general note: "Existing Zoning is SR". 4. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. General Note 3 should read "Proposed Zoning is R2". 5. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. List the applicable rezoning conditions on the drawing. The Rezoning conditions listed are only the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.5.3.5. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3. Under General Note 5 provide the "Subject to: Sec. 3.5.3.5.B, .C, .D, .E, .F, .G, and .H.". 7. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.7. Provide the annexation case number, C15-90-2, in the lower right corner, next to the title block. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R)". 9. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C. Label the existing curb along Camp Lowell Dr. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A.It appears that some type of lot split is proposed. Provide City of Tucson approved documentation for the lot split. It appears that this project is comprised of two (2) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the two (2) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A The zoning listed under Parcel 1 is not correct, this should read R2. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3. Provide a dimension for the western most parking area access lane (PAAL). 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.G If applicable show all proposed easements graphically on the plan and label as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I In addition to the building setback lines provide dimensions from the building to all property lines. The setback to Camp Lowell Dr. is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It is unclear how the disabled access ramps at the disable parking will gain access to the sidewalk that runs to the main entrance. It appears that the sidewalk runs into the side of a proposed ramp, please clarify. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps and anywhere the curb/sidewalk is flush with the pavement. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Zoning acknowledges that the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and allowed Lot Coverage are provided on the plan. Provide the actual provided on the plan. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Label the height and provide overall dimensions of each proposed structure on the plans. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Curb stops are required for the parking spaces located along the sidewalk which runs east/west, north of the proposed building, just west of the proposed disabled parking space. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P There appears to be some type of bus parking located near the west end to the center row of parking. Clarify what the 12'x 42' parking spaces are for. If this is proposed bus parking it cannot count toward required vehicle parking spaces. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Show the Detectable warnings (truncated domes) on the handicapped parking space detail. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The location of the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking does not meet the requirements for D.S. 2-09.4.1. Relocate so that the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking is located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main entrance to the building. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.A the minimum of thirty (30) inches is required between outer spaces of posts of racks, the 18" as shown on the detail is not correct. 23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The Class 2 detail calls out "3 Class 2 spaces shown" when 8 are needed, please clarify. 24. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC 3.3.4 "Civic Use Group, Cultural Use, Fifteen (15) percent - five (5) percent Class 1 and ninety-five (95) percent Class 2, revise the calculation. 25. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R Show the future sight visibility triangles (SVT) on the plan. 26. D.S. 2-05.2.4.U Once the rezoning conditions are provided on the plan, see comment 5, compliance with the conditions can be verified. Provide a separate letter demonstrating how the rezoning conditions have been complied with. 27. Check with engineering in regards to the requirements for the propose entrance gates. 28. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 29. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0026dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 07/30/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/30/2007 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 07/30/2007 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/08/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 31, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D07-0026 Mini Time Machine: Development Plan Review(6-26-07) Staff has no comments. |
| 08/09/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 9, 2007 Kevin Barber Swaim Associates, LTD 7350 East Speedway Boulevard #210 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D07-0026 The Mini Time Machine Development Plan Dear Kevin: Your submittal of June 26, 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 (TEP, Engineering, Wastewater, Addressing, Landscape, Traffic, ESD, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies City Approved Lot Split Documents (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: 326-1148 dp-resubmittal |