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 - D08-0018
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/14/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/18/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/20/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: March 19, 2008 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Development Plan D08-0018 AVN PROPERTIES T151416 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 ROSANNA WERNER |
| 03/20/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0018 Avn Properties 03/21/08 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-88-1 - Annexation Ordinance #7090 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/11/08 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 (XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 03/21/08 Urban Planning and Design Comments D08-0018 AVN Properties March 21, 2008 NOTE: The zoning of the subject site is I-1® and must be in conformance with annexation ordinance #7090 conditions: Therefore, please add the following note to the development plan general notes section. 1. Development plan is subject to Annexation Ordinance #7090 conditions; therefore, building heights shall be limited to 39 feet in height. Development Services staff to check mylar for inclusion of the above note. |
| 03/26/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The above-referenced project abuts Pima County right-of-way for South Alvernon Way. We (Pima County Transportation) have no objection to approval of the development plan for the above-referenced project, subject to the following conditions: 1) Show and dimension driveway return radii of at least 40' within the Alvernon Way right-of-way. 2) Show 6" x 12" concrete headers adjacent to the return radii of the driveway. 3) Show and dimension sight visibility triangles of 445' for the left side and 210' for the right side in accodance with Pima County Subdivision and Development Street Standards Details 3.10-3.12. This assumes a 3-lane road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph for the applicable segment of Alvernon Way. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the above comments. Brandon Matheson, P.E. Civil Engineering Manager Development Review Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 740-6389 |
| 03/27/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 26, 2008 To: David Whitney WLB 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: AVN Properties, LLC., Lot 2 Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-018 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (RWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast Interceptor. 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. 2. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 3. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction's case number, D08-018, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. 4. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #14 to read as follows: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, 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. 5. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 6. Sheet 2: The proposed MH#1 should be designated as public not private. 7. Sheet 2-4: Show the size and slope of each of the BCS shown on plan. 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 $200.00 (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. |
| 03/27/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0018 AVN PROPERTIES/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/26/08 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: 1.) Correct Alvernon Road to Alvernon Way on Location Map. 2.) Correct 58/59 on Location Map. The north half is 58/59 and the south half is 60/08. 3.) Delete direction from street names on Sheet 1 and Sheet 4. 4.) Correct the spelling of Alvernon Point Drive on sheet 1. 5.) Correct Title Block description from Lot 2 of Parcel 140-41-135D to a portion of Lot 12 of Bandes Addition. 6.) Delete Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot split Bk. 60, Pg. 40 on all sheets. 7.) Provide a copy of the recorded lot split prior to approval of this project. es |
| 03/31/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The site contains regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. Refer to DS 9-06 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. 2) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 9-06.2.5.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. 3) All tentative plats, development plans, site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 9-06.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. Revise the plans as necessary. 4) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS9-06.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply. 5) Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 9-06.2.5.C 6) Landscape plans are required to document compliance with the mitigation plan requirements. 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. 7) Ownership of the Protected Riparian Area (PRA) shall be provided in one or more of the methods set forth in DS 2-13.2.6 to insure continued preservation of the area. A recorded easement or other legal restriction is required. Refer to the standards and revise the plans and provide additional documentation as appropriate. Depict the PRA in a surveyable manner on the Development Plan and include recording data. 8) Add the new CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 03/31/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Alvernon Road is in Pima County jurisdiction. Prior to final approval by TDOT-Traffic verify that Pima County Traffic Engineering will accept the access point as indicated on the plans and coordinate any required off-site improvements with the county. A letter from the county is required verifying their acceptance/recommended improvements to Alvernon Road. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/02/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 195230 April 2, 2008 The WLB Group Attn: David Whitney 4444 E. Broadway Tucson, AZ 85711 Dear David Whitney: SUBJECT: AVN Properties D08-0018 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted March 21, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. Please identify all existing TEP facilities within the mapped area of the development including but not limited to overhead & underground electric lines, utility poles, and pad mounted equipment. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Steve Garcia at 917-8739 should you have any technical questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist hn Enclosure cc: City of Tucson (by e-mail) S. Garcia, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/07/2008 | 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 D08-0018. Summary: CASE: D08-0018 COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS. Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 120 PM Peak: 13 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 |
| 04/07/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0018 CASE NAME: AVN Properties: DP (6952 S. Alvernon Way) Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 4/11/08 COMMENTS SENT: 4/7/08 Items reviewed: Development Plan and Landscape Plan Land Use Plan: Rincon Southeast Subregional 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: 4/7/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0018_AVN_Properties.doc |
| 04/14/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 04/14/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment. |
| 04/15/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify "Personal Storage" regarding function relating to solid waste generated for each building. 2. Current positioning of enclosure does not provide adequate maneuverability to approach enclsoure area. Requires backing up more than 40 ft (DS 6-01.4.1.C) and backing into moving traffic. DS 6-01.4.1.I 3. No refuse/recycle enclosure detail provided. Refer to DS 6-01.4.2. Ensure to provide 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area between the rear and side wall protectors and the front gates. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open/closed positions. Fully dimension. 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 |
| 04/18/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0018 AVN Properties Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 04/18/2008 DUE DATE: 4/11/08 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 3/16/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.1.D The City/County jurisdiction limits indicated on the location map are not correct. South of Corona Rd. is located within the County jurisdiction. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.K Provide the annexation case #C15-88-1 in the lower right corner, next to the title block. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D08-0018 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. Remove DP # D06-0027 from all sheets. 5. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 List the proposed use of the property. A review of the plans indicates that the proposed use of the property is not Personal Storage as indicated in general note #3. The FAR calculations provide indicate "warehouse" which is a Commercial Storage Use. The following are definitions of Personal Storage and Commercial Storage: LUC Sec.6.3.11.2 Commercial Storage. Commercial Storage is the keeping of trade and personal goods by business and industrial establishments. Typical uses include cold storage plants, warehouses, and utility storage yards. LUC Sec. 6.3.11.4 Personal Storage. Personal Storage is the renting or leasing of space for storage of personal effects. Typical uses include multiple unit storage facilities or miniwarehouses. Clearly indicate the use of each building as well as the number of floors for each building. Thirty-four foot high buildings for a personal storage use indicates a possible second floor. Clarify. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.A This property has been recently split Provide copies of approved lot split documents. If the lot split has not been approved and the number of splits in the last twenty years has exceeded the maximum allowed a subdivision plat will be required. The development will not be approved until documentation of the approved split is provided to CDRC. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.B All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The north side of PAAL "A" will require barricades or wheel stop curbing. Per DS 3-05.22.B.3 A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction, provided pedestrian activity is directed to another location. Along the south side of PAAL "C" , and indicated on detail 17/6, a one foot distance from the edge of the PAAL to the guardrail does not meet the above code. Revise. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide pedestrian circulation path to the trash enclosure. See DS 2-08.3.1 The cross walk leading to the loading zone south of building one cannot be located in front of the loading zone. This cross walk does not connect to any sidewalk and a pedestrian circulation path is not required to be provided to a loading zone. It appears that overhead doors may be provided in the south side of building one. If this is the case clearly indicate the location of the overhead doors. If vehicular use doors are not being provided a 5' refuge with a min. 4' sidewalk will be required along the south side of building one. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.O Revise the number of required loading zones on sheet 1 of 6. The correct number is 3. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.P Clearly indicate in the parking calculations how the number of required parking spaces was determined. Indicate use of each building and the parking ratio for each use. The number of required parking spaces includes the handicap parking spaces as well as the number of provided parking spaces. On detail 3 of 5 clearly indicate the required location of the wheel stops. Min. 2'-6" from the front of the parking space. See DS 3-05.2.3.C.3. 12. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Per DS 2-09.4.1 class two bicycle parking spaces are to be located within 50' of the main entrance of the buildings. All bicycle parking spaces are located near the southeast corner of the property. Evenly space the bicycle parking spaces through out the project to meet the above requirement as close as possible. 13. DS 2-05.2.4.W Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. 14. The indicated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations for the actual FAR are incorrect. The actual FAR for this project based on all single story buildings appears to be 0.22 not 0.40. If there are two story structures on this project the FAR calculation will then need to be revised. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0018dp.doc 17 APRIL 2008 D08-0018/AVN PROPERTIES REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET 1 OF 6: A. DENOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY B. DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; PIMA COUNTY STANDARDS FOR CURB RAMPS AT DRIVE WAYS. C. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POINT AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 402 1. SHOW LOCATION OF NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DROP OFF POINT. 2. WIDTH OF ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO BE 4' MIN AS PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. II. SHEET S2 AND 3 OF 6: A. PROVIDE ONE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106; ICC 117.1, SECTION 503. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHOWING SIZE OF SPACE AND ISLE, SIGNAGE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. 1. SURFACE SLOPES FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 1:48, ICC 117.1, SECTION 502.5. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES REFLECTING COMPLIANCE B. ALL RIGHT OF WAY CURB RAMPS TO MEET PIMA COUNTY STANDARDS C. DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO COT SD 207. ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY CURB RAMPS TO MEET 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS, SECTION 406. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAIL AND DIMENSIONS. D. ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE WALK RAMPS TO MEET 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS, SECTION 405. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAIL AND DIMENSIONS. E. ALL ACCESSIBLE BUILDING RAMPS (NOTE 9) MUST COMPLY WITH IBC SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 405. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAIL SHOWING ALL LANDINGS, RAMPS, SLOPES, HAND RAILS, DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS. F. BUILDING 2 ACCESSIBLE EGRESS NEEDS TO BE REVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH IBC SECTIONS 1007, 1015, 1019, AND 1105. ALL REQUIRED EXITS NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE. G. FOR THE SAFETY OF DISABLED PERSONS WITH VISION IMPAIRMENT, A PHYSICAL SEPARATION FROM ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND VEHICLE AREAS IS NEEDED. PARKING AREAS THAT ARE FLUSH WITH THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WALKWAYS DO NOT PROVIDE A PHYSICAL SEPARATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED: 1. RAISE THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WALKWAY AND PROVIDE A 6" HIGH CURB AND WALK AREA. 2. PROVIDE A SURFACE MOUNTED, CONTINUOUS, CONCRETE CURB BARRIER APPROXIMATELY 4" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 3. PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS GUARD RAIL 4. PROVIDE A 2' WIDE DETECTABLE WARNING (TRUNCATED DOMES) AND A 4' WIDE MINIMAL ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WALK WAY BEHIND THE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP, ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FLUSH SURFACE AREA. THIS IS APPLICABLE TO ALL THE PARKING AREAS THAT ARE FLUSH WITH THE CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. III. SHEET 4 OF 6: A. EXTEND THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE END OF THE TURNING RADII AT THE DRIVE ACCESS FROM ALVERNON. B. PROVIDE ALL ACCESS CURB RAMPS REQUIRED BY PIMA COUNTY STANDARDS. IV. SHEET 5 OF 6: A. SHOW 6' WIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE EXTENSION TO THE END OF THE DRIVE RADII PLUS REQUIRED CURB RAMPS. B. DETAIL 1 REFERS TO PLAN FOR LOCATION OF "VAN ACCESSIBLE" PARKING SPACE. THIS IS NOT NOTED OF THE SITE PLAN. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/23/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AVN Properties LLC- Development Plan Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 6952 S Alvernon Way T15S R14E Sec16 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D08-0018 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised redesigned (D06-0027) Development Plan, landscape plan, and Drainage Report (The WLB Group, Inc., 11MAR08). The drainage report was reviewed for Development Plan purpose only. The Development Plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Delineate on the Development Plan the Xero-riparian habitat and the mapped Critical and Sensitive Biological Communities (Shaw 1986). No unnecessary development is allowed within these mapped riparian habitats unless approved by the Landscaping Division. Landscaping must approve the mitigation of any disturbance prior to Development Plan approval. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.2: Revise the project location map to identify conditions within the square mile area that is shown, such as the Rodeo Wash and the Regional Rodeo Detention Basin. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.E: Revise the index map on Sheet 1 to clarify the 100-year floodplain limit call outs. Provide either the delineated floodplain line or remove the references on the index map and provide the 100-year floodplain limits only on the Development Plan sheets that pertain to the site. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: Revise the Development Plan to correctly label the new DP #, D08-0018, in the lower right hand corner next to the title block on all sheets where indicated by "D06-0027." 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C: Revise the Drainage Note sections under the General Notes to remove all duplicate notes (i.e. #7 and #33; #6 and #32, etc.). 6) Tucson Code Chapter 26-11: Provide a Floodplain Use Permit and the $50 application fee with the next submittal of the Development Plan for the encroachment of fill, walls, and buildings within the existing 100-year floodplain. A FUP must be submitted with the Development Plan for approval. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Provide all existing easements on the Development Plan along with the recordation information. Specifically verify if there is an electric easement along the north property line along the existing power pole locations that or shown along the entire north property boundary. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.3: Revise the legend section on the Development Plan to include the symbols that are used to denote the 100-year floodplain and erosion hazard setback. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Clarify on the Development Plan the transition at all locations for the concrete vertical curbing to the proposed 6-inch concrete header. Clearly show transition points for clarity. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Per DS Sec.2-06.3.3.C revise the Development Plan to provide the minimum dimensions for the proposed landscape planters per Fig 3, DS Sec.3-05. 11) DS Sec.3-05.2.1.3.b: Revise the Development Plan to show the minimum unobstructed radius of 5-feet that is required at all PAAL intersection and 18-feet where the PAALs are being used as access for fire or refuse lanes. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan and plan view to call out post barricades (keynote #18) at all depressed curb openings. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise Detail #3 to label and dimension the required truncated domes along the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. Provide the minimum 2.5-foot overhang dimension from the face of the wheel stop to the pedestrian circulation to verify the required 4-foot clear width. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise Details #4 and #5 to meet the recommendations within the geotechnical report. Detail #5 calls out a 2.5 A.C. Pavement, however the keynote call out labels it as 2.0 A.C., clarify 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Revise the Development Plan to provide the recordation information for all proposed easements, specifically the proposed temporary slope and grading easement and the proposed water easement. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label and dimension all drainage improvements as called out in the drainage report. Specifically dimension all riprap pad dimensions in plan view or within a table next to detail (#9), call out the bleeder pipe within the basin, etc. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Detail #9 to clearly show the riprap pad dimensions for all proposed erosion protection locations. Per the detail the length dimension is called out in plan view, however plan view does not call out specific dimensions, clarify. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Detail #9 to verify the dumped rock riprap. Per the detail the riprap for the splash pad and side slopes are called out to be dumped rock, however the detail also shows 12-inch concrete and the riprap embedded into the concrete, clarify. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Detail #9 to call out the correct keynote (#11) that is shown in plan view. The detail calls out construction note #10 which is for the PAAL asphalt design not the depressed curb design, clarify. 20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Detail #12 for the proposed culvert crossing to reflect the following: a) Provide the minimum depth for the proposed upstream and downstream cutoff walls that are being proposed for the culverts per the Standard Public Improvement Detail #313. b) Provide the minimum pounds per square inch (psi) for the proposed 6-inch concrete pad at the outlet for the culverts. Verify if an additional cutoff wall is required at the downstream end of the concrete pad for erosion protection purposes. c) Provide the minimum angles for the proposed wing walls on the upstream and downstream end of the culverts. d) Provide all additional information and dimensions for the proposed concrete headwall. Provide the dimension for the minimum depth of cover over the pipes, distances between the center lines of each pipe, etc. 21) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise cross section #13 or plan view to clarify the slope protection as shown. Per plan view the slope along the north property line is slope protected with rock riprap; however the cross section does not label or dimension the rock riprap, clarify. Provide construction details for the proposed riprap, i.e. size, thickness, filter fabric type, method of placement, etc. Verify that the proposed protection meets the recommendations within the geotechnical report. 22) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise cross section #20 to provide the minimum depth for the proposed concrete footer for the retaining wall along the existing regulatory wash. The Development Plan must clearly dimension the minimum toe down depth for the proposed retaining wall and footer for future construction purposes. 23) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise cross section #17 to provide the minimum depth for the proposed concrete footer for the retaining wall along the existing regulatory wash. The Development Plan must clearly dimension the minimum toe down depth for the proposed retaining wall and footer for future construction purposes. 24) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise cross section #22 to provide the details for the proposed rock riprap. Provide the riprap size, thickness, method of placement, filter fabric specifications, etc. Verify the depth of both proposed swales in the cross section. 25) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to show the proposed 5-foot pedestrian access path connecting to the required 6-foot sidewalk located along Alvernon Way. 26) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension the pedestrian circulation path that is required from the proposed building to the proposed refuse container location. Provide keynote call out #24 at this location. 27) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label all roof drains and down spout locations. Verify that all scuppers that are proposed under the sidewalk contain the 10-year flow event. 28) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise the Development Plan and details to show existing or proposed sidewalk and curbing along abutting right-of-way. Revise dimensions on Development Plan to show the existing or proposed 6-foot wide sidewalk and curb along the existing Alvernon Way. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. 29) Refer to Traffic Engineering comments and Pima County Development Services (PCDS) for County requirements within the County right-of-way for Alvernon Way. If sidewalks are not required through PCDS a DSMR will need to be applied for to eliminate the required sidewalk and curb along the street frontage. Provide approval from PCDS, contact Brandon.Matheson@dsd.pima.gov for further questions regarding work within the public right-of-way. 30) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Revise the Development Plan to include the following: a) Verify the need for additional refuse container locations, per the proposed Development Plan the site only shows one container location, verify with Environmental Services if this is enough for the number of buildings proposed. b) Provide a detail for the refuse enclosure that labels and dimensions all requirements within DS Sec.6-01 and Figure 3 within the same section. c) Verify the maximum back-up distance of 40-feet for the refuse vehicle maneuverability. Per DS Sec.6-01 refuse vehicles have a max back-up distance of 40-feet for the maneuverability, per plan view it looks as if the vehicle has to back up more than the maximum allowed, clarify. 31) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Provide the geotechnical report that was prepared for this project to verify if all recommendations have been addressed on the proposed Development Plan. Refer to the Geotechnical Comments Section for further clarity. 32) DS Sec.10-01.3.6.2: Per the drainage report the detention/retention basin has a water depth in excess of 2 feet and side slopes at 3:1. Provide on the Development Plans and revise all associated details for the required security barrier. Assure that security barriers are provided around the entire detention/retention basin. Security barriers may consist of any combination of vegetation, masonary, or metal pipe material. 33) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise cross section #16 to clearly show the minimum 2-foot setback from the property line to the top of fill slope for the drainage swale. Clarify the depth of the proposed swale within the cross section. Provide the dimension for the required 2.5-foot overhang from the face of curb to the pedestrian circulation, to verify the required 4-foot clear width. 34) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise cross section #21 to clearly show the minimum 2-foot setback from the property line to the top of fill slope for the drainage swale. Clarify the depth of the proposed swale within the cross section. 35) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise cross section #22 to clearly show the minimum 2-foot setback from both property lines to the top of fill slope for the drainage swale. Clarify the depth of both proposed swales within the cross section. DRAINAGE REPORT: 36) Revise Page 9 Section 4 of the proposed Drainage Report to cite the reference used for the weir equation that calculated the depressed curbs and weir openings. 37) DS Sec.10-01.3.6.2: Per the drainage report the detention/retention basin has a water depth in excess of 2 feet and side slopes at 3:1. Provide on the Development Plans and revise all associated details for the required security barrier. Assure that security barriers are provided around the entire detention/retention basin. Security barriers may consist of any combination of vegetation, masonry, or metal pipe material. 38) Revise the drainage report and the culvert calculation sheets to reflect the proposed culverts that are shown on the Development Plan. Per the calculation sheets a circular pipe was used for the calculations, however plan view shows that elliptical pipes are proposed, clarify. If elliptical pipes are proposed revise the calculation sheets to reflect the changes. 39) Revise the drainage report to provide a detail for all erosion protection, culverts, headwalls, retaining wall toe downs, etc. Verify that all details on the proposed Development Plan meet the requirements within the drainage report and the recommendations within the geotechnical report. 40) Revise the drainage report to provide details for all cross sections that are shown on Figure 4, i.e. XA, XB, Xb-1, and XC. Verify that the details within the drainage report and the Development Plan match. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 41) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the basins, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the proposed retention basin. b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. d) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed. GRADING PLAN: 42) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit will be required for this project after the revised Development Plan submittal review. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Development Plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. 43) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the Development Plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 44) Provide a General Note to reference conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 45) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan, a revised drainage report, a geotechnical report and approval from DSD Landscaping Division that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the revised Development Plan, drainage report, geotechnical report and DSD Landscaping Division reviews. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 520-837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/25/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 25, 2008 David Whitney The WLB Group Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D08-0018 AVN Properties Development Plan Dear David: Your submittal of March 17, 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 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Pima County-Dev Review, Wastewater, Addressing, Landscape, Traffic, TEP, ESD, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Approved lot split documents (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 881-7492 |
| 04/25/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | March 9, 2010 David Whitney The WLB Group 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF CDRC FILE Development Plan Per Section 5.3.8.2.A, Expiration Dates, of the Land Use Code, "an applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A development plan application that has been in review for a period of one (1) year which has not been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a development plan for the property, a new development plan which complies with regulations in effect at that time must be submitted. The new submittal initiates a new one (1) year review period." Case # Case Name DSD Transmittal Date D08-0018 AVN Properties March 14, 2008 Please note that this case has been closed and that, in order to continue review of the project, new development plan/tentative plat application is required which comply with regulations in effect at the time of the new submittals. CDRC members should be advised of their ability to review the new applications per the current regulations. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager xc: CDRC file D08-0018 |