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 - D07-0039
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/18/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/18/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 16, 2008 To: Anthony Villarreal Barry Barcus Architect, Inc. 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: Chapman Automotive, 22nd Street & Belvedere Ave. Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D07-039 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. Sheet C4.0: Note #2 under Pima County Wastewater District General Notes needs to have the values filled into the blank spaces for proposed and existing FUE. Sheet C4.0: Remove the 2nd paragraph of Note #2. Sheet C4.2 A new manhole will be required at the point of proposed connection to the 8” existing public sewer line. If the proposed BCS was a 4” line then it could be connected directly to the 8” existing public line. Sheet C4.2 and C4.3: Show the Bk and Pg # for the new 30’ Public Sewer Easement when it becomes recorded. 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 $117.00 (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. |
| 08/14/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D07-0039 Chapman Honda Automotive Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 14, 2008 DUE DATE: August 15, 2008 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 September 11, 2008. The development plan expires next month and a resubmittal of the development plan will not be accepted unless an extension is granted by the CDRC Manager. Contact Patricia Gehlen (CDRC Manager) for information of the development plan extension. 2. The plans submitted for this review were not completed per Development Standards 2-05 - "Development Plan format and Content". The plans appear to be an architectural site plan normally submitted with building plans. It is not easy to decipher what plan sheets are related to the development plan because it appears that plan sheets not usually associated with a development plan have been included in this package. Another submittal may not be accepted if development standards 2-05 are not used to prepare the development plan documents. In addition to the development 2-05 additional standards that must be addressed in 2-08, 2-09, 3-01, 3-05, and other standards that referred to by Engineering, Landscape, Solid Waste, and Traffic. Other criteria used include the development criteria in the Land Use Code. Most of the responses to the zoning comments indicate that the information requested is on the final plat. The development plan and the final plat are two separate submittal packages with separate standards that must be demonstrated on each plan. Comments related to the development plan must be addressed and depicted on the development plan. Comments related to the final plat must be addressed and depicted on the final plat. The "Final Plat Format and Content" is under development standards 2-03.6.0. When the development plan is revised to comply with development standards 2-05 include a sheet index with specific sheet numbers related to the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO plan, i.e. Development plan sheets should be labeled DP-1, DP-2 etc, landscape plan should be LS-1, LS-2 etc. See additional comments by the DSD Engineering reviewer. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D070039dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan per development standards 2-05. |
| 08/14/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 14, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0039 PROJECT NAME: Chapman Detail Building PROJECT ADDRESS: 4426 E 22nd St 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. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Comment 6 from the last submittal was not resolved "6. The proposed gate location shall not create queuing of vehicles into the public roadway therefore the gate may need to be relocated to avoid creating adverse conflicts with vehicles on the public roadway. If needed, city staff can provide a detail that illustrates the desired gate entry configuration." The purpose of the comment was to push the gates away from the public roadway to prevent vehicles from stacking onto Belvedere Avenue. Again, guidelines can be provided illustrating TDOT desired layout/location of gates with respect to the roadway. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The site is required to include screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise as necessary to provide a 5' high screen at all points where the site is adjacent to Office zoned property, including the driveway to Columbus Blvd., unless it is jointly between properties. Provide documentation of any applicable access agreements or provide the required screen wall. LUC 3.7.3 & DS 2-06.3.7. 2) The loading area is required to be screened with a 6' high wall from the adjacent Office zone per LUC table 3.7.2-I. Revise the landscape and development plans to include the required wall. 3) 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. Approvals are also required for proposed plantings in the public drainageway or related 16' access easement. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 4) Per condition of rezoning (C9-96-10), the drainage access and maintenance easement is to remain unobstructed. The development/landscape plans indicate the proposed wall obstructs access more than allowable. Revise the plans to comply with the condition. 5) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. Correct the native plant calculations. Our calculations below based on your numbers indicate that additional mitigation is required. DS 2-15.3.4.B. Plants Excluding Saguaros & Ironwoods Species: Prosopis velutina Enter total viable plants 65 #1 Preservation Required @ 30% 19.5 Minimum PIP and/or TOS 20 #2 Enter Proposed PIP 0 #3 Minimum TOS (if negative, enter 0) 20 #4 Enter Proposed TOS 27 #5 Excess TOS (=TOS Credit) 8 #6 Total Plants On Site 27 #7 Total Plants RFS (if negative, enter 0) 38 #8 Enter Preservation Credits Quantity Credit Barrel Cacti >2' H x2 0 Other Cacti >4" H x2 0 Ocotillos >6' H x2 0 Yuccas >2' H x2 0 Other Trees 6-14" cal. X2 0 Other Trees >14" cal. X4 0 Shrubs >6' H or D x2 0 Total Preservation Credits 0 #9 TOS Mitigation 20 #10 RFS Mitigation Requirements 76 #11 Total Mitigation (w/o credits) 96 #12 Minus Excess TOS Credit Equals: 88 #13 Minus PIP Credit Equals: 88 #14 Total Mitigation (if negative, enter 0) 88 #15 Total Plants of This Species On Site 115 #16 6) An additional Native Plant Preservation Plan or approval is required for any construction or disturbance of public right-of-way areas (street or drainageway) adjacent the site. Contact Gary Wittwer, the Department of Transportation Landscape Architect, at 791-5100 for additional information. LUC 3.8.4.2 Alternatively, right-of-way areas may be incorporated into the submitted plans. The approved Native Plant Preservation Plan can then be used to obtain any required permits from the Department of Transportation where an NPPO clearance is required. 7) Revise the plans to indicate the same information regarding walls or barriers. Sheet C2 differs from the AS1.00 regarding the 22nd Street frontage. 8) Revise the development plan and landscape plan to show and dimension the space to be reserved for the Twenty-Second Street and Belvedere Ave. landscape borders. LUC 3.7.2.4, DS 2-05.2.4.X. The landscape borders are to be located entirely on the site, unless approval for landscaping for up five feet of the public right-of-way is approved by the City Engineer. See comment 3. 9) The site affects regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. please call to set an appointment for a Watercourse Consultation @ 837-4947. Refer to DS 2-13 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmentally valuable habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. DS 9-06.2.2.C.4. 10) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) and Mitigation plan per DS 2-13.2.5.B.1 if encroachment is proposed in the regulatory area. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 11) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. DS 9-06.2.2.C.4. Refer to DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply. 12) The Landscape plans for the project are required to document compliance with any mitigation plan requirements (see comment 12). A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included on the plans. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; techniques used for mitigating impacts to, or preservation of, natural areas; specifications for restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas; and general compliance with the applicable standards. Revise as necessary. 14) The development plans propose a pipe railing along 22nd Street. This railing may be better located behind the 10' wide street landscape border (inside the property limits) as an additional barrier will be required to protect the landscaping from any adjacent vehicular use areas creating a dual barrier. LUC 3.7.2.4, DS 3-05.2.3.C. 15) A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL (driveway to Columbus Blvd.) and any wall, screen, or other obstruction. DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 16) Section 9 on sheet C1.2 indicates a 6' wall in the street landscape border that is not indicated on the development plans. Walls may not be located within the street landscape border, except as allowed per LUC 3.7.3.2.C 17) Plantings proposed along Naylor Wash may not comply with applicable habitat mitigation standards. Per DS 9-06 (p.9), revegetation should recreate the lost functions and values of the riparian habitat through the planting of native trees, shrubs, understory plants and seed mix native to the site which will result in comparable habitat that is equal to the predisturbance habitat in area, plant density, diversity, and volume on the net site. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 08/15/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/15/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Chapman Detail Building D07-0039, T14S, R14E, SECTION 22 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on July 18, 2008 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Provide a copy of the geotechnical report that addresses retention basin percolation rate to verify the dry-up calculations in the Drainage Report. 2. The driveway and P.A.A.L. hydraulic capacity calculations should be included in the Drainage Report. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 3. Calculate the required erosion hazard setback, from Naylor Wash, based on the equations found in Chapter 7 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ". Additionally, it is not clear the purpose of the proposed bank protection. The bank protection, as proposed, is not acceptable. The wash side slopes are too steep for the proposed dumped rip rap. A more durable form of bank protection shall be proposed and the design calculations shall be included in the Drainage Report. The text in the Drainage Report shall also clarify if the bank protection is designed for the 100-year floodplain level or for a more frequent storm. Is the purpose to reduce the erosion setback line? The bank protection shall have the proper key-in's and toe-down, based on scour depth and erosion hazard calculations, to prevent the bank protection from being undermined in a major storm. 4. The drainage report does not address the need for sidewalks and roof drainage and scuppers. According to D.S. 2-08.4.1.E. and D.S. 2-08.5.1.E., 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks and pedestrian paths when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage and drainage scuppers on the drainage exhibit. 5. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows all proposed drainage information, including dimensions and construction information. The exhibit shall provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage and surface flow arrows, inlets and outlets, maintenance access ramps, sidewalk scuppers, basins ponding limits and water surface elevations, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. This information shall be used for providing the proposed drainage scheme on the Development Plan and Grading Plan. 6. All proposed spillways and splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report. This comment was previously made on the first submittal. The response to this comment, which states that "Calculations for the concrete scuppers and storm drain pipes are included …" does not answer the comment. 7. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated into the development by conveying surface flow and rooftop drainage to designated water harvesting areas. Please address in the Drainage Report, in details, how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. Copies of the above-referenced manual can be obtained from the Engineering Counter. Please be advised that for water harvesting purposes, the landscaped areas shall be depressed a maximum of 6". 8. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for all proposed drainage structures and retention basins shall be included in the Report. 9. Buildings set backs from the proposed retention basin(s) need to be determined based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. Additionally, the Geotechnical Report shall recommend how existing and proposed slopes shall be protected and stabilized. 10. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. The submitted plans do not comply with the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.0. The submittal appears to be a combination of architectural site plans and grading plans that are not easy review as a development plan. Resubmit a development plan, which complies with the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.0. including the proper sheet numbering. 2. Respond in the next submittal to our previous comments dated 09/27/2007. 3. The Development Plan can not be approved until the Final Plat is approved and recorded to ensure the elimination of the existing lot lines. Engineering recommends delaying the Development Plan submittal until the Final Plat process is completed or close to completion. Landscape Plan: Landscape Plan is acceptable to Engineering and Floodplain Review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 08/15/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. AS1.00 DP - Does not provide adequate maneuverability to minimum required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosure area. Conflict with adjacent building/canopy. Collection vehicle must be able to position itself perpendicular to enclosure in front of the enclosure gate opening. DS 6-01.4.1.A & 6-01.4.1.C Recommend positioning enclosure clockwise to a 30 degree angle to correct this problem.. 2. Access provided from Belevedere and exit onto Columbus is adequate. 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 |
| 08/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 08/19/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D07-0039 CHAPMAN DETAIL BUILDING/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 8/18/08 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: Per comment letter dated 9-28-2007, correct parcel number on Sheet CS1.00, AS1.00 and on all other applicable sheets. Add recorded book and page to legal description on CS1.00, in both places. Add Section, Township and Range information to vicinity map. Include “…G & SRB&M, Pima County, AZ…” on all applicable sheets. Label scale on vicinity map on all applicable sheets. Label section corners on vicinity map on all applicable sheets. Delete “1” from “9-501” on location map on all applicable sheets. Delete “East” from 22nd Street on sheet C2.0, C2.1, C2.2, C2.3, C3.1, C3.2, C3.3, C4.2 and C6.1. Delete “South” from Columbus Boulevard on sheet C2.3 and C6.1. Spell out suffix ‘Boulevard” for Columbus on sheet C2.3. Delete parcel numbers and all owner information for surrounding parcels on sheets C3.4, C4.3 and C4.4. Correct “Columbus Street” to “Columbus Boulevard” on sheet C6.1. |
| 08/19/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0039 Chapman Detail Building 8/19/08 ( ) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-96-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: August 15, 2008 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 ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (ü) See Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (ü) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan (ü) Other - color elevations, see comments REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 8/11/08 Chapman Building Detail D07-0039 This case was reviewed for consistency with the amended Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and zoning conditions adopted by the Mayor and Council on January 4, 2006 (Ordinance No. 10237). Please address the following: 1) Per rezoning condition #1, please provide detailed color elevations, for all four building elevations. To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition #8, show that exterior mechanical equipment will be screened from view of adjacent residential properties (existing and vacant) and street frontages. To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition #9, there shall be no bay doors that open to the south; and no doors, windows or exhaust ports along the south or east elevations that could result in excess noise being directed to the south or east. 2) Per rezoning condition #1.e, provide a "left-turn only" sign at the exit onto Belvedere. Keynote 27 indicates this access will be designed as a left-tun only, however, the rezoning condition also requires that it be signed for left turns only. 3) Per rezoning condition #4, please provide security lighting along the southern perimeter of the site. The lighting is to be designed to illuminate the 16-foot access and maintenance easement on the north side of Naylor Wash, but not spill over to areas south of the wash centerline. 4) On the development plan, please label the existing 16-foot access and maintenance easement along the north bank of Naylor Wash. 5) Please clarify that there will only be two phases of development, 1 and 2. Provide a phasing line on the development plan. 6) Please place the following General Note on the development plan: " Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, the Columbus Boulevard access and Naylor Wash improvements must be completed. In addition, the screening, landscaping, sidewalk and curbs along Belvedere Avenue north of Naylor Wash must be installed to the north property boundary prior to or concurrently with the construction of any buildings north of Naylor Wash." 7) Please place the following general note on the development plan: "Razor wire or concertina wire is not permitted and shall not be used." If you would like to discuss any of these comments, please call Joanne Hershenhorn at (520) 837-6965. |
| 08/20/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 20, 2008 Anthony Villarreal Barry R. Barcus Architect Inc. 5251 N. 16th Street #800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Subject: D07-0039 Chapman Detail Building Development Plan Dear Anthony: Your submittal of July 18, 2008 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 (Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning, Addressing, Traffic, Landscape, ESD, DUPD, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies ERR (Landscape, DSD), 2 Copies Detailed Color Elevations (DUPD, 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: (602) 264-2542 |