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 - D08-0025
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/16/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/17/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 09/18/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Goodman's Interior Structures D08-0025 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 18, 2008 DUE DATE: October 14, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1) Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is April 30, 2009. 2) Based on the provided parapet wall height of 32'-6" the required setback to Benan Venture Drive would be 32'-6", the plans show 30'-6" setback. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.I Zoning was not able to verify building setbacks as building height was not provided. Once the building height has been provided the setbacks can be verified. As this is adjacent to Major Street & Route the building setbacks are measured from the back of curb. Provide building setback dimensions on the plan from the back of curb. 3) This comment was not fully addressed. The parking calculation is based on the total square footage of the building. This said the total number of required vehicle parking spaces is 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Zoning acknowledges that there are ample vehicle parking spaces provided but the parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4 WHOLESALING USE GROUP, Business Supply and Equipment: One (1) space per two thousand (2,000) sq. ft. of storage area for the first twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. of storage area plus one (1) space per ten thousand (10,000) sq. ft. of storage area for over twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. of storage area. This said until comment 3 is addressed the exact number of required parking spaces cannot be verified. 4) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Due to the change in sidewalk width along the north side of the building for 6'-6" to 6'-0" the parking space adjacent to the sidewalk is required to be 18'-0" deep with wheel stops to prevent vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. Minimum width for a sidewalk that allows for vehicle overhang is 6'-6", four (4) minimum width for a sidewalk D.S. 2-08.5.1.A and two (2) foot six (6) inches for vehicle overhang D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2. 5) Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 6) Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0025-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/23/2008 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | September 23, 2008 To: TIM M. O'NEILL O'NEILL ENGINEERING, INC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: GOODMANS INTERIOR STRUCTURES, WAREHOUSE ADDITION Dev. Plan - 2nd Submittal D08-025 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. |
| 10/01/2008 | 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 D08-0025 Goodmans Interior Structures ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-79-37 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Santa Cruz COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/14/08 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 (XXXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions (XXXXX) NOTE: Rezoning conditions are to be added to the General Notes section of the plan. Development Services staff to check mylar for inclusion of rezoning conditions to the General Notes section. ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 9/23/08 |
| 10/06/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 6, 2008 TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Development Plan Engineering Review re-submittal PROJECT: Goodmans New Warehouse LOCATION: 3925 N BUSINESS CENTER DR, Ward 1 FEMA PANEL: 1619K X-shaded REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0025 SUMMARY: The revised Development Plan package including the revised development plan, revised drainage report, revised Landscape sheets, and response letter was submitted and reviewed. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-05.2.4.H, 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Address the following drainage comments: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U: It was stated in the response letter that there was a section in the drainage report that discussed compliance with rezoning conditions, however it was not found. Indicate graphically on the Development Plan, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Specifically, explain in the Drainage Report how project conforms to rezoning conditions items 1(b)(1) & (2), and 2. b) It is imperative that drain down time is achieved within 24 hours if upstream watershed is greater than 10 acres or 12 hours if the upstream watershed is 10 acres or less. Clarify in drainage report. c) For remaining volume in basin below outlet invert elevation, provide drain down time based on a geotechnical assessment for infiltration for the proposed west basin. (See comment #2a below) d) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Dimension building - basin setback line on Development Plan and discuss in report the basin setback required based on geotechnical report. A minimum setback should be called out (6-ft min) with other geotechnical design characteristics labeled or added as a note. (See comment #2b below) 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A, 10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Address the following two geotechnical comments: a) Revise drainage report to explain drain down time for basin (including outlet) that meets 12 hour criteria as the report states it is 19 hours of drain down time for 72 min/in perc rate. Or revise basin design. b) Add notation to Development Plan for proposed basin to assure geotechnical recommendations are met. Specifically, that the basin side slope is covered with grouted rip rap and underlining of waterproof membrane, that a toe down is provided, and that the side slopes and ground around buildings near basin are compacted. Otherwise provide revised basin design. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.G: The brief legal description (including Township Range Section etc.) should be included in the title block information, provided, preferably in the lower right corner of the sheet. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.H: Label contour interval next to north arrow on sheets with topography. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: For the Development Plan, dimension or provide detail for the refuse collection area. Minimum dimensions of the inside of the dumpster enclosure may be no shorter than 20-ft between bollards for a double-loaded enclosure area, and 10-ft from front to rear bollards. Show dimensions on the plan or detail 10-DVP4. 6) The following comments will need to be addressed for the grading review: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: The local benchmark shall be provided for the grading plan. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: The grading plan will assure that there shall be no obstructions including signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure that there are no conflicts with sight visibility triangles. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.X: Add note to Grading Plan that the number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility. d) Due to poor perc rates, the Grading Plan will need to show minimum of 1% in basin for positive drainage to outlet area. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Development Plan, soils report, revised Drainage Report, rezoning conditions, and a response letter. You may schedule a meeting to go over comments, call for engineering review time frame, or if you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 10/14/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Any new landscaping proposed in the public right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect at 520-791-5100 for specific requirements. LUC 3.7.2.9.A 2) Submit a native plant preservation plan. LUC 3.8.4.2 Preservation requirements from previous approvals on the site may impose additional preservation and mitigation requirements. Provide a copy of any prior Native Plant Preservation approvals for reference, if applicable. No plans have been received by this section. 3) Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations: A) Square footage of all street landscape borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. B) Dimension length and width of landscape borders. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 |
| 10/20/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 20, 2008 Tim O'Neill O'Neill Engineering, LLC 2001 West Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Subject: D08-0025 Goodmans Interior Structures- Warehouse Addition Development Plan Dear Tim: Your submittal of September 16, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Soils 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: (602) 242-5722 |