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 - D08-0002
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/18/2008 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/30/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 30, 2008 To: PATTIE DAVIS PSOMAS 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: JIM CLICK USED CAR FACILITIES Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-002 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, D08-002, 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: Revise General Note #17 to read as follows: 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: Show symbols in the Legend to distinguish existing from proposed sewer line and elements. Sheet 2-8: Include sewer directional flow arrows on both existing and proposed sewer lines. Sheet 2-8: Include the rim and invert elevations for the existing public manholes shown on plan. Sheet 8: If the private sewer line running south of MH#6023-02 exists why is it referred to as future? Sheet 8: The public sewer easement per Keynote #2 should be vacated per separate instrument not abandoned. 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 $150.00 (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. |
| 02/01/2008 | 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: D08-0002 JIM CLICK USED CAR FACILITIES/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 11, 2008 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 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. jg |
| 02/07/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Development Plan 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Revise the Native Plant Preservation to include the Salvage and Mitigation Report information per DS 2-15.3.4.B. 3) Revise the landscape plan to show the parking spaces and required canopy trees per LUC 3.7.2.3.A. Distinguish between display and parking spaces. 4) Revise the Development and Landscape plans to demonstrate compliance with the screening regulations. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 5) Provide dimensions for the street landscape borders on the Development and Landscape Plans. Revise the landscape plans to provide 50% vegetative coverage of the area from the property line to the location of the required screen. Provide revised calculations. DS 2-06.3.4.C.2 6) Revise the landscape plan to provide the number of trees indicated in the Valencia Road landscape border calculation within the street landscape border. LUC 3.7.2.4 7) Revise the landscape plan to indicate drainage channels and basins and water harvesting areas and show proposed slope protection. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 8) Provide planting details for locations where plantings are indicated in areas covered with 12" of rip-rap. DS 2-07.2.2.D 9) The six-foot high wall proposed along Headley Road may only be located within the street landscape border as permitted in LUC 3.7.3.2.C. Revise the Development and Landscape plans. 10) Provide plans for the landscaping and the paved path per C9-05-10, condition 14. 11) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include Phase 1 in it's entirety as indicated on the Development and Grading plans. DS 2-05.3.9.F 12) Revise the landscape plan to include Phase 1 in it's entirety as indicated on the Development and Grading plans. Landscaping and dust control requirements apply to the open areas, drainage-ways, and basins. DS 2-05.3.9.F 13) Revise the grading, landscape, and native plant preservation plans to show limits of disturbance/grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B, DS 2-15.3.4.A 14) Revise the plans to comply with rezoning condition 21. C9-05-10 15) Revise the plans to demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 23. GRADING PLAN 1) Revise the grading plans to show limits of disturbance/grading. 2) Revise the grading plans to correspond with changes made to the development plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 02/08/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/12/2008 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 02/12/2008 11:32 AM >>> IFany additional right of way, easements or linear park areas are required to be dedicated to the public by this re-zoning then the following items need to be submitted to the Real Estate Division located at 201 N, Stone Avenue, 6th Floor, Attn: Services Section: 1.) Legal description and sketch for the area (right of way, easement or linear park) to be dedicated to the public, 2.) Title report for the subject parcel(s) dated within 30 days, IF a public easement needs to be abandoned you will need to contact the Real Estate Division directly, attn: James Rossi, Services Coordinator at 791-4181. There is an application and $200.00 fee for all easement abandonments and right of way vacations. |
| 02/12/2008 | 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 D08-0002 Jim Click Used Car Facilities 02/07/08 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tucson Mountain Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/19/08 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: The site falls under rezoning case number C9-05-10 must demonstrate compliance with imposed rezoning conditions: 1. Rezoning condition # 18 reads "building facades at rear and side are to be designed with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front facade, with consistent design treatment, including but not limited to, comparable color palette, signs, lighting, screen walls, rooflines, and materials." Please submit color building elevations to satisfy this requirement. Note: Staff will review Phase II portion of the rezoning site when it becomes available. |
| 02/14/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#193325 February 13, 2008 PSOMAS Attn: Pattie Davis 800 E Wetmore Suite 110 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Dear Ms. Davis : SUBJECT: Jim Click Used Facilities D08-0002 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 18, 2008. 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. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 02/14/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/14/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering does not recommend approval of the development plan and drainage report. The following comments are offered: Sheet 1 of 13 - General Note #10 should be deleted as the document package includes the improvement drawings. Sheet 2 of 13 - Please indicate the location of the existing bus stop. Conformance with Rezoning Note #4 could not be verified. Sheet 2 of 13 - Please indicate if the curb access ramps at the western entrance to Valencia Road are existing or proposed. Sheet 2 of 13 - Please indicate location of existing sidewalk, if any, along Valencia Road. If there is no existing sidewalk, sidewalk shall be installed in accordance with Dev. Std. 3-01. Sheet 2 of 13 - Please indicate width of proposed sidewalk along Headley Road. Drainage Report The drainage report is not approved and a resubmittal is needed. The following comments are offered: Detention is required. The acquiescence of the Octopus owner to receive increased flows does not negate the requirement for detention. The West Branch watershed is classified as a balanced basin. The West Branch Diversion Channel is not classified as a “major channel”, thus, Criterion 1 is not satisfied. The report does not contain the analyses necessary to show compliance with Criterion 2. Criterion 2.1 can’t be used since the tributary area of the West Branch Diversion Channel is greater than 10 sq. mi. at its confluence with the Santa Cruz River. (Dev. Std. 10-01) Matt Flick, P.E. Engineering Manager Development Services Department City of Tucson Phone: (520) 837-4931 Fax: (520) 879-8010 Please visit our web site: www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd |
| 02/14/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The grading plan is not recommended for approval. The following comments are offered: Sheet 5 of 13 - References to Cross-Section 1/7 should probably be to 4/7. Sheet 5 of 13 - As it regards the accessible route through the island east of the eastern drive from Valencia Road: Please indicate location and width of depressed curbing. Will there be any delineators, bollards or similar at curb termini? Sheet 7 of 13 - As it regards the retention basin: Cross-Section 1 indicates the intent to match grade all around. The existing low point along the proposed basin perimeter is at the NW corner. This indicates that all flow (with the exception of the pass-through from this basin to the proposed Octopus basin) will exit at this location. Please indicate the flow rate at this point and the measures that will be taken to mitigate the concentrated flow prior to its entrance into the West Branch Diversion Channel. The 10-year flow must go under the path in this location. Sheet 7 of 13 - It is suggested to place the upstream invert of at least 1 of the 2 proposed 6-inch RCPs at the proposed basin invert to help prevent ponding longer than 12 hours. Sheet 9 of 13 - Detail L looks to be on this sheet, not on Sheet 7. Sheet 13 of 13 - Please indicate dimensioning/horizontal control for sidewalk along eastern drive from Valencia. SWPPP Please indicate controls around the perimeter of the Phase 1 site. No perimeter controls were noted along Valencia Road and along the Octopus PAAL. Revise site map to indicate these perimeter controls. Matt Flick, P.E. Engineering Manager Development Services Department City of Tucson Phone: (520) 837-4931 Fax: (520) 879-8010 Please visit our web site: www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd |
| 02/15/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/15/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No provisions mentioned or shown (other than general notes comment on 17 & 27 regarding 50 ft distance from residential property) for refuse and recycle collection services. Refer to DS 6-01.3.0 & 6-01.4.0. Recommend design for one refuse and one recycle roll-off compactor to handle volume. Secondary option is two double wide enclosures. 2. Provide enclosure detail with screening, minimum clearance requirements, and fully diemensioned. Refer to DS 6-01.4.2 & 6-01.4.3. 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 |
| 02/19/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Jim Click Used Car Facilities Development Plan (2nd Review) D08-0002 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2008 DUE DATE: February 19, 2008 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 January 17, 2009. 2) The development plan shows two (2) phases. As no development information is shown for the second phase a separate development plan will be required at the time of development. 3) D.S. 2-05.2.5 Show the required three (3) inch by five (5) space for the approval stamp on the plan. 4) D.S. 2-05.3.1 If available provide the email addresses for owner/developer of the site, and the registrant(s) in the plan. 5) D.S. 2-05.3.2.D Provide the administrative street address in the title block. Zoning acknowledges the Project addressed shown on the plan. 6) D.S. 2-05.3.3 & D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.7 Provide the development plan number D08-0002, annexation number C15-93-3 and the grading plan number T08BU00075 adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Remove the reference to D06-0035, CO983-72 and S07-014 from the plan. 7) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.3 As the southern portion of this parcel is not part of the rezoning revise GENERAL NOTE 4 to include the split zoning of C-2 and C-1. 8) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.4 Provide as a separate general note the existing and proposed use. The proposed use should be listed as VEHICLE RENTAL AND SALES, SUBJECT TO 3.5.9.5.A & .B. 9) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.6.b Revise GENERAL NOTE 30 to include the LUC Section 2.8.3. 10) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.9.a As a GENERAL NOTE provide a floor area for each building. 11) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.9.b As a GENERAL NOTE provide the allowed and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 12) D.S. 2-05.3.8 B There are numerous easements (TO BE ABANDONED, PER D06-0035, ETC) called out under the KEYNOTES provide the docket and page for each easement in the note. 13) D.S. 2-05.3.8.C and D.S. 2-05.3.9.I List Valencia Road as a MS&R and provide the right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for both existing and future if applicable. 14) D.S. 2-05.3.9.D It appears that this project may comprise three (3) parcels, 138-24-023D, 138-24-023F, & 138-24-023G. If Parcels 138-24-023F, & 138-24-023G are part of this project a lot combination is required. Provide A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. 15) D.S. 2-05.3.9.E The existing zoning shown for the parcels located north of Valencia Road is incorrect and should be listed as R-3. 16) D.S. 2-05.3.9.E Sheet 4 of 13, the existing zoning for the parcel located directly to the west is incorrect and should be listed as C-1. 17) D.S. 2-05.3.9.E The zoning shown for the southern portion of this parcel, PHASE 2, is shown incorrectly and should be labeled as C-1. 18) D.S. 2-05.3.9.F Zoning is unable to verify that this project meets the requirements of this section as no development information is provided for PHASE 2. Additional comments may be forth coming. 19) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5 For your information per a determination by the Zoning Administrator the required vehicle parking is calculated as follows; for building square footage any interior area that is used for parking, display or storage of vehicles can be excluded from the calculation. Revise the calculation to reflect this. 20) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Clearly delineate between required vehicle parking and vehicle display areas. 21) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Provide a fully dimension parking layout, include dimensions for all PAALs. 22) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Any area not accessible to the public, gated areas, can not be used for required parking. 23) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a The parking calculation includes information for PHASE 2 but again there is no information shown the plan to verify this. Please clarify. 24) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Detail K, sheet 9 of 13 does not meet the requirements for a van accessible parking space, see ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 502.2 and revise the detail. 25) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a The handicapped parking calculation is not correct. Based on 87 vehicle parking spaces provided, per the International Building Code Table 1106.1 four (4) accessible vehicle parking spaces are required, the calculation on shows 2 required. Also the handicapped parking calculation shows that 5 spaces have been provided but only 4 are shown on the plan, please clarify. 26) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.c Provide a loading space calculation and loading space, if required, on the plan. For your information the same square footage used for the parking is used for calculating the loading space requirement, see comment 19. 27) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d The Bicycle parking calculation is not correct, based on 87 vehicle parking spaces provided two (2) Class 1 spaces are required for PHASE 1. PHASE 2 can not be verified due to lack of information. 28) D.S. 2-05.3.9.N Provide building setback dimension on the plan. 29) D.S. 2-05.3.9.P Provide overall dimensions and the proposed height for each structure shown on the plan. 30) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q The striped pedestrian circulation/accessible route shown within the landscape island, located north of the proposed SALES building, must be a sidewalk. Show the required accessible ramps and detectable warnings. 31) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q The proposed sidewalk, shown at the eastern most entrance parking area access lane (PAAL), appears to run into the side of an existing curb access ramp. Provide a detail showing how this connection will work and meet the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. 32) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required between all buildings on site, shown on the plan. 33) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required to connect to the pedestrian circulation along Headley Road, show on the plan. 34) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q The sidewalk shown between the parking and what appears to be a canopy area for display, at the north side of the sales building is required to be a minimum of 6'-6" wide due to the vehicle overhang. Provide a clear dimension on the plan. 35) D.S. 2-05.3.9.S Show the refuse collection area on the plan. 36) D.S. 2-05.3.9.T Provide a separate letter stating how all rezoning conditions have been met. The following comments are in regards to the rezoning conditions. a) #4 it is not clear where the bus bay/pull out is located. b) #6 it is not clear how this condition has been met. c) #11, 12, 13, & 14 it is not clear how this condition has been met. d) #18 & 19 Provide building elevations so that compliance to this condition can be verified. e) #21 it is not clear how this condition has been met. 37) D.S. 2-05.3.9.V If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 38) If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ d08-0002 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Jim Click Used Car Facilities Grading Plan (1st Review) T08BU00075 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2008 DUE DATE: February 19, 2008 GRADING PLAN 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) The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section and appears to be in general compliance with the development plan but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2) Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development plan has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ T08BU00075 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 02/19/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 02/19/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 02/19/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 02/20/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC – Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0002 CASE NAME: Jim Click Used Car Facilities Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 2/19/08 COMMENTS SENT: 2/19/08 Items being reviewed: ( ) Tentative or Final Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other – (Grading Plan submitted) Related Cases: annexation ordinance - 8424 rezoning - C9-05-10 CDRC – D06-0035 Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: () APPROVED – No Resubmittal Required. () No comment () Proposal complies with annexation or rezoning conditions () Proposal satisfies trails, recreational amenities, and/or parks and open space requirements () No additional comments - complies with comments submitted on: () NOT APPROVED – Please resubmit the following; see attached comments. ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 2/19/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0002_Jim_Click_Val_Headley.doc PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS D08-0002, Jim Click Used Car Facilities: DP Please provide a legible drawing that indicates the phasing. 2) Please provide plans for the offsite trail corridor, including the 12-foot-wide paved path and landscaping, as per rezoning conditions nos. 11-14 (C9-05-10). Include a typical cross-section. The trail corridor must be at least 30 feet wide. Both the City and County Parks Departments, and possibly other departments, will need to review and approve the plans. On sheet DP-3, at the left-most side of the page, thank you for noting that a linear park corridor is required per the rezoning conditions. Please add the following to that note: “Offsite trail corridor improvements will be provided in conjunction with this development.” Please add the following General Note: “A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the offsite trail corridor plans have been reviewed and approved, and the trail corridor constructed and found to be acceptable by the City and County.” Per rezoning condition # 21, the design details for the 5-foot-wide paved pedestrian pathway located between the rezoning site and the property to the south must be shown on the plans when the design details for the 40-foot landscaped buffer along the southern site perimeter are provided. If the 40-foot landscape buffer is not required/provided as part of Phase 1, the 5-foot-wide paved path will not be required then, either. If you have any questions or want to discuss these comments, please call Joanne Hershenhorn at 791-4505. |
| 02/21/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 21, 2008 Pattie Davis PSOMAS 800 East Wetmore Road, Suite 110 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D08-0002 Jim Click Used Car Facilities Development Plan Dear Pattie: Your submittal of January 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 (Wastewater, Landscape, DUPD, Real Estate, Engineering, ESD, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Color, dimensioned building elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Real Estate, DSD) 2 Copies City of Tucson Lot Combo Form (Zoning, 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: ?????? |