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 - D08-0002
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2008 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/14/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | April 10, 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 – 2nd 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. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 04/21/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Development Plan 1) Revise the landscape plan to include required canopy trees that are evenly distibuted per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1a. There are two situations where the requirements are not met: 1) North of building 1 near the center of the parking row, and 2) North of Building 2 (Trees counted toward the vehicular use area requirement are to be located within the paved parking lot or within the landscape areas within ten feet of the paved area. LUC 6.2.22 2) Revise the Development and Landscape plans to demonstrate compliance with the screening regulations. LUC Table 3.7.2-I Thank you for indicating the vegetative screening. One additional clarification is required: Note the required height for the screening and indicate that for Land Use Code purposes the height of screening material is measured on the project side of the screen, at finish grade. DS 2-06.3.7.A 3) 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 (this is the effective width of the border). Provide revised calculations. DS 2-06.3.4.C.2 Plants used for screening purposes are not included in the fifty percent calculation. 4) Revise Section P on sheet DS to accurately reflect the currently proposed location of the six-foot high wall indicated along Headley Road. 5) Reference the correct grading plan number on the development package sheets. 6) Revise the plans to screen the proposed loading area from Valencia Road (if located within 100 feet of the right of way line). LUC Table 3.7.2-I GRADING PLAN 1) Revise section 2 on GP3 to show only one right-of-way (RW) line. 2) Revise the grading plans to correspond with any additional changes made to the development plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 04/29/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Two single enclosures currently shown will not be sufficient to support the needs of this type of development. Recommend adding two additional single enclosures or design for two double wide size enclosures to accomodate for a maximum of (4) refuse and recycle containers. 2. DP-1, Show collection vehicle circulation within development to and from the required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach in front of each enclosure. Ensure provide adequate turning radiis (36ft inside & 50 ft outside) and maneuverability from public street onto development, within, and when exiting. DS 6-01.3.1.A , 6-01.4.1.C, & Figure 1. 3. Show spacing dimension of rear side bollards to front side bollards of 4 ft to center. 4. Recommend gates be constructed with a metal angle frame with a metal deck for better durability. 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 |
| 04/29/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | >>> Andy Vera 12/17/2008 4:09 PM >>> Good afternoon Patricia, FYI...I reviewed the mylars to this DP and all is good regarding solid waste collections/disposal. Thanks, Andy |
| 04/30/2008 | 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: April 30, 2008 DUE DATE: May 01, 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) D.S. 2-05.2.5 Revise the approval stamp so that "HDZ" does not obstruct the check off box. This comment applies to sheet 1 only. 3) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.3 As the southern portion of this parcel, Phase II, is not part of Rezoning case C9-05-10, General Note 4 should state that "EXISTING ZONING IS C-1 AND PROPOSED ZONING IS C-1 AND C-2." 4) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.4 Add the existing use to General Note 10. 5) This comment has not been addressed. 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. 6) D.S. 2-05.3.9.E Sheet 2 of 16, the existing zoning for the parcel located directly to the west is incorrect and should be listed as C-2. Zoning acknowledges that a change for the property to the west was requested, comment 16. Comment 16 addressed the property to the west on sheet 4 of 13. 7) D.S. 2-05.3.9.F If no Phasing II development is to be shown on this plan remove the references to Phase 1 & 2 and show the area currently shown as Phase II as "NOT TO BE DEVELOPED". 8) As you have agreed to participate in the Development Package program the requested information is required on the development plan. Please review the Development Package Submittal requirements. D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Provide a fully dimension parking layout, include dimensions for all PAALs. 9) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a The five (5) required vehicle parking spaces, shown west of Building 1, appear to overhang the proposed sidewalk. Provide a dimension for the required 2-'6" overhang on the plan. 10) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Provide an overhang dimension for the five (5) required vehicle parking spaces, shown east of Building 1. 11) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Provide a dimension for the required vehicle parking space adjacent to the proposed refuse container located at the southwest corner of the proposed project. 12) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Provide a dimension from the required vehicle parking space, located at the north end of the parking shown west of Building 2, to the column that is supporting what appears to a canopy. 13) This comment was not addressed. Per International Building Code (IBC)Section 1106.5 Van Spaces. For every six or fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be a van-accessible parking space. This said. Per IBC Table 1106.1, three (3) accessible parking spaces are required, one (1) being van accessible. 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. 14) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d The Bicycle parking calculation is not correct, based on 52 vehicle parking spaces provided two (2) Class 1 spaces are required. 15) Zoning acknowledges that the proposed buildings will meet required setbacks. Provide a setback dimension per LUC Section 3-2.6.5.B for both Valencia and Headley Road. There is also a "0' BUILDING SETBACK REQUIRED" shown along the east property line. Remove this reference from the plan as the required setback to Headley Road is 21' or the height of the building, which ever is greatest measured from the back of future curb. D.S. 2-05.3.9.N Provide building setback dimension on the plan. 16) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Clarify what the striped pedestrian facility, shown within the landscape island, located north of the proposed SALES building, is constructed of. This pedestrian facility must meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.C. Truncated domes are required at the north and south end of this island. 17) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Provide a dimension from the support columns of Building 1's canopy, north to the edge of curb. This dimension must be 2-'6" minimum as no wheel stops are provided. 18) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Provide crosswalk striping for the pedestrian circulation as it crosses the PAAL's shown near the east and west side of Building 1 and near the northeast and northwest corner of Building 2. 19) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q As you are providing required parking along the west side of Building 2 and it appears that there are service bay doors along the west side of Building 2 provide a five (5) foot striped pedestrian refuge along the west side of the building. 20) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Keynote 12 calls out a parking stall. It appears that this is an accessible access aisle not a parking stall, please clarify. 21) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q There appears to be some type of access ramp located on the east side of the PAAL that runs adjacent to the east side of Building 2, near the loading space. This access ramp does not appear to meet any standard detail. Provide a detail for this ramp. 22) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q The proposed access ramps shown on the east and west side of Building 1 does not appear to meet any standard detail. Provide a detail for these ramps. 23) D.S. 2-05.3.9.S Provide a clear height for the proposed Building 2 canopy as it appears that the refuse collection vehicle will be required to exit under this canopy. 24) D.S. 2-05.3.9.V Please clarify what type of signage is proposed. If the signs called out under Keynote 24 are to be billboards contact DSD Sign review section for minimum requirements. Separate loading spaces will be required for each billboard. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 25) D.S. 2-05.3.9.V If the proposed signage is to be under separate permit state so on the plan. 26) 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-.2nd.doc 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 (2nd Review) T08BU00075 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 30, 2008 DUE DATE: May 01, 2007 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. |
| 05/01/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approv-Cond | Acknowledged that the legal description for additional right of way for Headley will be submitted under separate cover. Please send it to the following address. Sincerely, Jim Stoyanoff Property Agent Real Estate Program City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. 6th Fl. Tucson, Arizona 85701 (O) 520.837.6719 (F) 520.791.5641 Jim.Stoyanoff@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/01/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | All Engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Approval is conditional upon satisfactory response to Env. Svcs. comments regarding the vehicle maneuverability. |
| 05/01/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approv-Cond | Real Estate has completed the processing of the Easement Abandonment, no further comment for this development. |
| 05/01/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC – Community Design Review Committee CASE NAME & NUMBER: D08-002a Submittal #: 2 COMMENTS DUE: 5/1/08 COMMENTS SENT: 5/1/08 Items reviewed: Development Plan Other – Landscape Plan, D06-0035 Grading Plan, GR2007-154 Related: rezoning - C9-05-10 CDRC – D06-0035 Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: CONDITIONALLY APPROVED – Subject to making the following revisions. No resubmittal required. On the Development Plan (DP), sheet 1/16, please revise the wording of General Note 33 as follows: “ … and found to be acceptable by the City and County.” This should replace the existing wording “… and found to be acceptable by the City or County.” On DP-3 (sheet 4/16), at the left side of the sheet, where it indicates 12’ wide paved trail improvements per Valencia Octopus Car Wash D06-0035, please add the following: and GR2007-154. REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 5/1/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0002a_Jim_Click_Val_Headley.doc |
| 05/01/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee CASE NAME & NUMBER: D08-002b Submittal #: 3 COMMENTS DUE: 12/19/08 COMMENTS SENT: 12/19/08 Items reviewed: Development Plan Related: rezoning - C9-05-10 CDRC - D06-0035 Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed the mylars and APROVES the plans. No resubmittal required. REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 12/19/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-002b_Jim_Click_Valencia_Headley.doc |
| 05/01/2008 | 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 D08-0002 Jim Click Used Car Facilities () 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: 05/01/08 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 (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 02/19/08 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 04/22/08 |
| 05/08/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 8, 2008 Pattie Davis Psomas 800 East Wetmore, Suite 110 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D08-0002 Jim Click Used Car Facilities Development Plan Dear Pattie: The above referenced development plan has been CONDITIONALLY APPROVED by the Community Design Review Committee. Once the necessary corrections are made per the on-line comments, please submit the following documents for sign-off. 1 Double Matte right-reading Océ or Photo Mylar of the COMPLETE SET of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and the Native Plant Preservation Plan (if part of the original submittal). AND 1 Double Matte right-reading Océ or Photo Mylar of the Development Plan. AND 1 CD that contains all of the drainage/hydrology and other reports submitted for the review and approval of this plan. The extra Double Matte right-reading Océ or Photo Mylar that you submit will be delivered to Pima County for permanent recording. Additional blackline copies will be made from the complete mylar set and distributed to various review agencies for their files. These copies will be ordered from the City's contracted print company and billed to you unless you already have an account at another printing company. Please let us know which printing company you would prefer to use and list them on your attached transmittal form when submitting your mylars to the CDRC office for sign-off approval. Your printing company will deliver the mylar and two (2) blackline copies to your office. If you are out of town you will need to contact the printing company for pick up or mailing arrangement options. TO ENSURE A MORE RAPID REVIEW OF THE MYLARS, PLEASE HAVE THE CITY OF TUCSON APPROVAL STAMP PLACED ON EACH SHEET OF THE SUBMITTAL SET, PREFERABLY IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER NEAR THE TITLE BLOCK. THE STAMP IS LOCATED AT http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/CDRC Rezoning/CDRC/CDRC Stamp/cdrc stamp.html. Prior to submitting the mylars to the CDRC office, Environmental Services and Real Estate must approve the mylars. The approval must be in writing (E-mail is okay). 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/ |