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 - D08-0014
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/28/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/10/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this Development -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 03/11/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Show nearest fire hydrant to new 1400 SF building. See IFC Chapt. 5. |
| 03/11/2008 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | To Whom it May Concern: The attached PDF contains the estimated trip generation information for the project D08-0014. Summary: CASE: D08-0014 COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS. Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 23 PM Peak: 6 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Sandy Sandra C. Holland Senior Statistical/ Research Analyst Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405 Tucson AZ 85701 Tel: 520 792 1093 X462 Fax: 520 620 6981 |
| 03/12/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 12, 2008 To: David Laredo Laredo 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 Environmental Quality Subject: Desert Toyota Parking Expansion Development Plan – 1st Submittal D08-014 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, D08-014, 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: Show a symbol in the Legend for the proposed sewer line. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states and delete General Note #14: 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 #12 to read as follows: 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 1 & 2: Include the IMS# for the existing public manhole shown on plan. Sheet 1 & 2: Show the size of pipe for the proposed private sewer line and include the slope/length and material of pipe. 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 $50.00 (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 . |
| 03/17/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plans and affected plans to include revised calculations for Cercidium microphyllum. The correct total mitigation is 15 and the total of the species on site should be 24. 2) The landscape plan and the table "Dispostion of TOS and Mitigation Plants" (P. 6 of Analysis Summary Report) do not appear to correspond. Identify all TOS and mitigation plants on the landscape plan and revise the table as necessary. DS 2-15.3.4 3) Revise the landscape plans to show the locations of all plants from both schedules on sheet L2. DS 2-07.2.2 4) Define keynotes 15 & 16 on sheet L2. DS 2-07.2.2 5) Revise the Development plan to indicate the minimum width of tree planters in vehicular use areas and draw the planters at the appropriate scale. DS 2-05.2.4.X, LUC 3.7.2.3. 6) Show the locations of proposed fencing and walls on the Development Plan DS 2-05.2.4.W. Screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street. Construct fencing behind the street landscape border behind the street landscape border if possible. 7) Revise Revise Detail 3 on sheet L3 to indicate a six-foot high masonry as indicated on the Development Plan. DS 2-07.2.0 8) Identify the tree species proposed for the street landscape border. DS 2-07.2.2 9) Revise the plans to clarify if this site provides vehicular access to the site to the east. Vehicular use areas must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines or driving on to adjacent sites. DS 3-05.2.5.C.3.1 10) Revise the site plan notes and calculations on the landscape plan if the same site plan notes are modified. DS 2-07.2.1.A 11) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A If applicable, revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes in most instances are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. DS 10-01.4 12) If this project is an expansion of twenty-five (25) percent or greater of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. Landscape plans and code compliance will be required for the entire site. DS 2-07.2.0 13) Document compliance with conditions of rezoning. Provide verification of compliance with conditions #2, 13, & 26 by providing plans and other documents as necessary. C9-07-05 14) ADD THE CDRC CASE NUMBER AND ALL RELATED CASE NUMBERS TO ALL PLANS. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 03/17/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#194676 March 17, 2008 Dear Mr. Lance: SUBJECT: Desert Toyota Parking Expansion D08-0014 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 6, 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. 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, offsite and electrical load plans. 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 Please call the area Designer Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc:P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (Email) N. DiMaria, Tucson Electric Power |
| 03/20/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D08-0014 DESERT TOYOTA PARKING/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: March 20, 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. APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: CORRECT TWENTY SECOND STREET TO 22ND STREET ON APPROVED MYLAR. NOTE: 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 |
| 03/24/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0014 CASE NAME: Desert Toyota Parking Expansion: DP Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 3/27/08 COMMENTS SENT: 3/24/08 Items being reviewed: Development Plan and Landscape Plan Related: rezoning - C9-07-05 land use plan(s) - General Plan Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: APPROVED - No Resubmittal Required. No comments. REVIEWED BY: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 3/24/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08_0014_Desert_Toyota_Parking_Lot.doc |
| 03/24/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/26/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No provisions shown or mentioned for on site storage and collection of refuse/recycle waste. If existing conditons apply must call out as such. 2. If improvements are enough to require full code compliance then enclosure detail will be required fully dimensioned. Clarify. 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 |
| 03/28/2008 | 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 D08-0014 Desert Toyota Parking Exp. 03/27/08 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan ( Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-07-05 (Desert Toyota) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: 3/27/08 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 3/26/08 The Department of Urban Planning and Design D08-0014 - Desert Toyota Parking Exp. Development Plan March 26, 2008. Staff offers the following comments: Rezoning case C9-07-05 was approved by Mayor and Council on June 26, 2007, with 27 rezoning conditions. The rezoning conditions apply to the full site. Please revise the development plan and landscape plan to include so staff can review for full compliance of the rezoning conditions. The following are required revisions: 1. Please revise the development plan and landscape plan to show rezoning compliance on the full site, including the existing dealership. 2. In response to rezoning condition # 2, the applicant indicates on the development plan, sheet 3 of 3, that they do not wish to execute a required waiver related to rezoning condition # 2. Please provide written proof this position has been presented to the City of Tucson Attorney's Office. 3. Please revise development plan to include four-sided building(s) elevations of existing building(s) (existing dealership area) for compliance review with rezoning condition # 7. 4. Please revise development plan to include four-sided building(s) elevations of existing building(s) (existing dealership area) for compliance review with rezoning condition # 11 and condition # 14. 5. Please revise landscape plan to include the required landscape border along the southern property boundary (existing dealership area), for compliance review with rezoning condition # 12. 6. Please revise landscape plan to include streetscape view corridors (illustrations) as it relates to on-site signage to eliminate the future destruction of mature canopy trees (rezoning condition # 13). 7. Please revise development plan sheet 3 of 3, masonry wall cross-section to comply with rezoning condition # 15. Please revise cross-section to indicate wall is graffiti-resistant and incorporate the requirements (options available) of rezoning condition # 15. Please provide wall(s) elevations if you wish to incorporate the option of " a visually interesting design on the wall surface." 8. Please revise landscape plan to identify the location of "detention/retention basin(s) and revise to comply with rezoning condition # 18.d. The development plan indicated depressed landscape areas with "water harvesting" but does not identify the required detention/retention basins. If DSD staff determines detention/retention basins are not required on this over-all site, please indicate so. 9. Please revise development plan to identify location of on-site pole lighting and include pole lighting, bollard lighting, or other similar lighting (illustrations), drawn to scale to demonstrate site design compliance with rezoning condition # 22. 10. Please revise the development plan to include the required wrought iron fence on top of a single course of block above grade, screen wall combo required along the eastern boundary of the consolidated Desert Toyota property. Please identify location on sheet 1 of 3 and provide a wrought iron/wall combo illustration. |
| 03/31/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 03/31/2008 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 03/28/2008 11:55 AM >>> No comment |
| 04/01/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/01/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Desert Toyota Parking Expansion D08-0014, T14S, R15E, SECTION 20 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Report on February 29, 2008 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Although this project does not lie within a balanced or critical basin, Rezoning Conditions #17, 18, 24, 25 require the provision of runoff detention. Revise the drainage report, drainage exhibits and Development Plan accordingly. Refer to rezoning conditions for additional requirements. 2. Provide, on the proposed conditions drainage exhibit, all proposed drainage solutions and structures. 3. The contour lines, in the proposed conditions drainage exhibit, are very light. Additionally, most of the contour lines lack the elevations. Revise as needed. 4. Show offsite and onsite discharges that impact the site and demonstrate how they enter and leave the site. 5. The report does not address erosion control requirements for this project. Address this issue if applicable. 6. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and 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 on Figure 4. 7. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 8. Determine and show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed detention/retention basins based on the Soils Report recommendation. 9. The channel and scupper analyses do not include relevant information such as velocity, location, material, how the runoff amounts were determined, etc. Provide the required information. 10. The Drainage Report does not address water harvesting and does not demonstrate how drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 11. The buildings finished floor elevation appears to be a little low. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 12. Verify in the report compliance with Rezoning Conditions # 17,18, 24 and 27 Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. Provide the Basis of Bearing tie to one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 3. Verify that there are no existing easements on site. Provide a recent title report for review (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 4. Provide the recordation data for the existing public right of way as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.C. 5. Provide the width of the existing sidewalk. If the sidewalk is less than 6' wide, it shall be removed and replaced with a 6' sidewalk (22nd Street is an MS & R Road) (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C.). Additionally, proposed sidewalk, along 22nd Street, shall be 6' wide in accordance with the MS & R requirements. 6. The contour lines, in the proposed conditions drainage exhibit, are very light. Additionally, most of the contour lines lack the elevations. Revise as needed (D.S. 2-05.2.3.E.). 7. Are there existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F.). 8. Show all proposed easements, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 9. Show clearly how site drainage will be conveyed from paved areas to the proposed detention/retention and water harvesting areas (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 10. Show all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, detention/retention basin, basin inlet and outlet structures, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). Provide drainage structures details such as cross section, dimensions, materials, water depth, etc. 11. Add a general note that addresses the drainage structures maintenance responsibility, the frequency of maintenance activities and who will be conducting the maintenance inspections. Please be advised that a registered civil engineer shall be responsible for the inspections and the preparation on the required maintenance report. 12. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 13. Provide all applicable building setback lines including, detention/retention basin setbacks (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.). 14. Reference Standard Detail 207 (City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details for Public Improvements) for all proposed wheelchair ramps. 15. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage proposed sidewalk scuppers where applicable. 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. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 16. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 17. As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. 18. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. Please be advised that additional information may be required, by Permits and Codes, to be shown on the proposed PIA plans. 19. Verify in the report compliance with Rezoning Conditions # 6,17,18, 24 and 27 20. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 21. Additional information and details might be required on the Grading Plan. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the detention/retention inlet and outlet. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 04/02/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D08-0014 Desert Toyota Parking Expansion - full code compliance entire site. 7550 E. 22nd Street, C-2 rezoning case. Development Plan, 1st Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 2008 DUE DATE: March 27, 2008 COMMENTS: 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 February 28, 2008. 2. This plan was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). The plan content was reviewed under DS 2-05. The project was also reviewed for compliance to rezoning conditions of case C9-07-05. 3. This project consists of the combination of proposed automotive sales with an existing automotive garage for Desert Toyota, which is an auto sales business. Combined, and essentially functioning as one, the overall property will be subject to full code compliance. The project was reviewed as an automotive sales business, per discussion with the Planning Administrator, Glenn Moyer. The comments that were generated below are based upon that use. 4. The plan submitted shows only the proposed development of the west half of the project - the existing east half of the development is not shown. Please revise the development plan to show the overall site, and provide calculations for the entire site development (parking, bike parking, FAR calcs). (I do acknowledge I recently reviewed the east side of the project under T06OT3210 for full code compliance of auto repair use.) 5. Please darken all lines, type, etc. on the plan for microfilming purposes. 6. Per DS 2-05.2.2.A.1, please list the address & phone number for the owner/developer. 7. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3, please revise the use of the property to be "Automotive Sales". 8. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.10, please provide a note stating "This project is designed to meet the requirements of Major Streets and Routes, LUC 2.8.3." 9. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.11, Please revise note 3 to include the entire site area in square footage and acreage (only the west half is listed now). 10. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B., regarding easements: A) please graphically depict clearly the location of the 1' no access easement. Use a different line weight for easements please. B) also provide the docket and page for recordation of the 1' no access easement. C) wasn't there an easement issue at the far east side as well? D) will there be an access an parking agreement between the lots or a lot combo and covenant? E) please ensure any other easements are shown graphically, with recordation information listed. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.3.G, the last approve plan for the east half of the overall site shows a 6' CMU wall and curbing separating the two halves of the project. Clarify if removing, or if keeping and show graphically on the plan. 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.B, please declare the zoning to the south of the new sales area and west of the site as well (C-1) 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D, regarding traffic circulation: A) dimension all PAAL widths for east half of site ( I acknowledge the PAALs were reviewed on the last site plan, were all two way and met code.) B) the last approved site plan for the garage did not have public access generally. Are you going to prohibit public access by posting signs near the entries? 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, I acknowledge both buildings meet setbacks, please provide the following for records/permitting: A) dimension provided setbacks for existing garage to north, south & east property lines B) dimension proposed setbacks for sales building to north, south & west property lines. C) off 22nd Street, as building setback of greater of 21' or height of building wall is still within right of way due to great width of right of way in this area, provide distance from back of future curb to property line along 22nd Street. D) Revise building setback note A to read that the setback is taken from the back of the future curb (22nd St. is a MSR, thus it's over 1000 ADT) E) Revise building setback note D to list the required setbacks from C-2 to R-2 and O-3 as well. 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, regarding pedestrian circulation: A) I do recall from the last approved site plan for the garage, the area around the garage could be striped, due to no public access. If public access is planned, sidewalks will be required on the sides of the garage that do not have garage doors. B) show pedestrian access - dimensioned - with truncated domes/ ramps, etc for the garage site area as well please. (ON WEST HALF OF SITE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN - SEE FOLLOWING) C) declare if the pedestrian route from 22nd up to the property line is in flush with the pavement at the crosswalk, or if a ramp is needed provide it and keynote D) At edge of sidewalk from 22nd where meeting crosswalk to cross to building - provide truncated domes on concrete before transitioning across PAAL to building, regardless of whether a ramp is needed - per ANSI 406. E) provide detail of handicapped accessible ramp, and include truncated domes F) appears there is no access from handicapped parking access aisles to sidewalk surrounding building. Please provide ramps. G) please dimension the widths of the sidewalks around the building H) please provide a pedestrian route to connect buildings, per DS 2-08.3.1 I) provide pedestrian routes to any/all dumpsters from adjacent buildings 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.M, regarding Floor Area Ratio: A) revise development designator in all notes to "31" and revise max allowed FAR to .90 B) please revise the FAR calc to include the 6000 sf. Garage building C) in Note 4 list total GFA of both buildings. 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, regarding buildings: A) dimension the footprints of both structures B) show openings for all structures - vehicular and pedestrian C) declare how height measured - from grade to top of flat roof and then add parapet height 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, dimension the provided loading zone 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, regarding parking: A) in the regular parking space detail, modify the location of the wheel stop barrier to be fully contained within the top 2'6" of the parking space B) per zoning administrator, parking for auto sales can be based upon the GFA of the auto sales, office and cashier areas at a ratio of 1:250 GFA, PLUS 1 parking space for every 10,000 square feet of total lot area. Declare all these areas on the interior and list square feet. C) Revise parking calc to meet the above. D) declare any storage areas for vehicles waiting for repair - note screening may apply E) declare any display areas for vehicles for sale F) declare area where public/employee parking will occur G) declare number of handicapped parking spaces provided, based upon total number of actual provided parking spaces - separate out the number of van accessible spaces as well 19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, regarding bike parking: A) per LUC 3.3.4 - bicycle parking is required for a car sales use - at a ratio of 4% of the total amount of provided vehicle parking. Please provide bike parking and a calculation based upon the amount of actual provided vehicle parking spaces - not display or storage area. B) please provide a bicycle parking class I detail drawing C) keynote bike parking location(s) 20. Per DS 2-05.2.4.R, show sight visibility triangles for site entry by garage building. 21. Per DS 2-05.2.4.T, show all dumpsters and pedestrian access to them. 22. Per DS 2-05.2.4.U, regarding rezoning conditions: A) list all conditions of rezoning on the plan. B) give a letter stating how all conditions of rezoning case C9-07-05 will be addressed. C) City Attorney Viola Romero is reviewing your attorney's letter regarding condition 2. D) please keynote a 6' CMU wall all along the south property line E) keynote where free-standing signage will be posted on site to meet condition 9 F) the Pima County Assessor's office photos show garage doors all along the south side of the existing auto service garage building. Per Glenn Moyer, condition 11 of the rezoning - which prohibits garage doors on the south face of buildings - applies to entire site. Provide notes and building elevations showing how this condition will be met. G) show location of free-standing lighting on the site - meeting condition 22 H) show location of fencing - meeting condition 26. 23. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V, provide location for postal service. 24. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, call out location for any free-standing signage. 25. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon responses provided. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951 if there are any questions on this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0014 desert Toyota expansion.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 04/09/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 9, 2008 George Lance L2 Architects 6418 East Tanque Verde #102 Tucson, Arizona 85715 Subject: Desert Toyota Parking Expansion Development Plan Dear George: Your submittal of February 29, 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Wastewater, Landscape, ESD, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, DUPD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Building Elevations (Zoning, 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: 546-4777 |