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 - D08-0027
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/22/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. DELETE THE NOTE 20 REFERENCE TO THE 1:12 SIDEWALK RAMPS OF THE TWO ACCESSIBLE PARKING GROUPS BETWEEN BLOCK "A" AND BLOCK "B". INSTEAD REFER TO DETAIL 5 SAME SHEET. 2. AT DETAIL 5, THE DETECTABLE WARNINGS FACING EACH OTHER LEAD TO AN ACCESSIBLE AISLE LANDING, NOT A HAZARDOUS AREA. DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CODE FOR THIS DETAIL. 3. CHANGE THE REFERENCE AT KEYNOTES 13 FROM "COT STD. DTL 207" TO "2006 IBC/ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406". |
| 08/26/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/27/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | August 26, 2008 To: JOE ZEMAN LEADSTAR 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 Environment Quality Subject: RIVER WALK, LOTS 1 THRU 140, BLOCKS A & B, COMMON AREA "A" - "F". TP/DP – 2nd Submittal D08-027 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 the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 08/28/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: River Walk D08-0027 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 28, 2008 DUE DATE: September 19, 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 May 12, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D Based on section 4, sheet 3 it appears that the retaining wall called out at the north end of the northwest parking area Block "A", exceeds the six (6) inches in height as stated in D.S. 3-05.2.2.D, see D.S. 3-05.0 Figure 2 for the correct back-up spur configuration. 3. This comment has not been addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 show the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the development to the south. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The sidewalks shown around building #1 are dimensioned as six (6) foot wide with a proposed vehicle overhang of two and one-half (2-1/2) feet. Per D.S 2-08.5.1.A the minimum width of a sidewalk is four (4) foot and with the two and one-half (2-1/2) foot vehicle overhang the minimum width of the sidewalk would be six one-half (2-1/2) feet. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Near the southeast corner of proposed building 2 Keynote 15 points to what appears to be a sidewalk now, two places. If there is a propose retaining wall along the sidewalk adjacent to the parking provide a dimension from the parking space to the retaining wall. This dimension must be at least of two and one-half (2-1/2) feet. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Near the southwest and southeast corners of the proposed building on Block "B" Keynote 15 is pointing at what appears to be a ramp system, not a retaining wall, please clarify. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC 3.4.4.1.B.2 More Than One (1) Building. On a project containing more than one (1) building, loading spaces shall be provided for each building, based on the number of spaces required for the uses within each building. This said Building 1 requires one (1) 12 x 35 loading spaces and Building 2 requires two (2) 12 x 35 loading spaces. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC Section 3.4.4.6 Striping of Loading Spaces. Loading spaces shall be striped in such a manner as to distinguish the space from motor vehicle parking spaces and other uses on the site. Show this on the plan. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4. RECREATION USE GROUP, the required vehicle parking is as follows, One (1) space per fifty (50) sq. ft. GFA. If the proposed use is listed under the RECREATION USE GROUP provide the correct use and the require parking for that use. Per the current LUC there is not a use in the RECREATION USE GROUP that parks at one (1) space per 175 sq. ft. GFA. 9. This comment was not fully addressed. The accessible vehicle parking calculation does not include the number of required van accessible vehicle parking spaces. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a parking calculation for the required and provided handicapped vehicle parking spaces, include the number of required and provided van accessible vehicle parking spaces. Depending on the uses the required number of handicapped vehicle parking spaces may change, see International Building Code (IBC) Section 1106.4. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Distribute the Class 1 bicycle parking between the two buildings. 11. This comment was not fully addressed. Include on the detail materials for lighting. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q On the Class 2 bicycle parking detail include materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. Be sure to review the revised D.S. 2-09 for bicycle parking requirements and provide all required dimensions per LUC Section 2-09.5. 12. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 13. 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\D08-0027dp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat/development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/04/2008 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | <<El Pollo Loco WR201954 D08-0027.doc>> SUBJECT: El Pollo Loco D08-0027 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 28, 2007 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development |
| 09/05/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a response comment sheet with the next submittal. 2. Add the CDRC development plan case number (D08-027), the rezoning case number (C9-07-02), the Scenic Corridor overlay zone case number (SCZ-05-13), annexation case number, variance case number, and any other related case numbers, to all sheets of the landscape plan and native plant preservation plan in the lower right hand corner. 3. Revise the landscape plan to match the development plan layout. All landscaping and screening elements, including required parking lot canopy trees (per rezoning condition #17), and all revised calculations must be shown on the landscape plan. The revised landscape plan must also demonstrate compliance with the conditions associated with rezoning case #C9-07-02 and must be in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan, dated January 6, 2007, the Pedestrian Amenities Plan, dated February 13, 2007, and the Design Compatibility Report. On sheets L-1 and IRR-1 a canopy tree (velvet mesquite) is shown to be planted within the loading zone location immediately to the west of the "Block B" building. Revise landcape plan. Indicate the location of proposed class 2 bicycle parking (as was done for the class 1 bicycle parking) on the landscape plan to clarify that there is no conflict with proposed plantings/canopy tree locations. 4. Revise the symbols for plants to be transplanted and removed to be consistent between the native plant preservation plan drawing and its legend. |
| 09/16/2008 | 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 D08-0027 River Walk 9/17/08 ( X ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-04; C9-07-02; C15-04-01; SCZ-05-13; C10-05-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: September 19, 2008 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: ( x ) Tentative Plat ( x ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( X ) Architectural drawings, Oxford Realty Letter REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 9/17/08 Comments, 5. There were not any architectural drawings with the resubmittal. Please provide detailed color elevations of all buildings that show five-sided architecture design. These elevations should also show that the buildings will have entryway elements that enhance design character and reinforce pedestrian oriented activity of the project. (Rezoning Conditions 8, 9, and 16). 6. The proposed Development Plan is to be in conformance with the Preliminary Development Plan dated January 26, 2007 and the Pedestrian Amenities Plan dated February 13, 2007. The Development Plan does not make this apparent. Although some details indicate meandering 6-8 feet paths, the development plan does not address the requirement of a minimum of 50% of the lineal feet of the interior pedestrian path system that is shaded by trees or structures. Please indicate on development plan and in notes that this requirement is being met. (Rezoning Condition 1 and 10). 7. No letter from Oxford Realty was attached with the resubmittal. There are to be a minimum of five off-site pedestrian access points that link to the internal pedestrian system. See Pedestrian Amenities plan dated February 13, 2007. Please indicate where these pedestrian access points are on the development plan and in the notes section. (Rezoning Condition 12). 8. Please provide documentation of any pedestrian cross access agreement with the property to the east/southeast; or documentation that a significant effort has been made to obtain said cross access. (Rezoning Condition 13). 9. Please provide detail, and identify on the development plan the two pathway entry signage/features to promote pedestrian activity and wayfaring from Rillito River Trail to the project. (Zoning Condition 14). 10. Please indicated on landscape plan, and provide a detail of the pedestrian/bicyclist node, as shown on the Pedestrian Amenities plan dated February 13, 2007. (Rezoning Condition 15). 11. Include note on landscape plan that reads "One canopy tree shall be provided within the vehicular use area for each four motor vehicle parking spaces, or the shade pattern caused by mature trees, buildings, and other structures on the vehicular use are from 9:20 am to 3:30 pm MST on June 21 must cover fifty percent of the paved area." Identify this on the landscape plan. (Rezoning Condition 17). |
| 09/16/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: September 16, 2008 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: River Walk, 2396 E. River Road. Development Plan D08-0027 (Second Review) T13S, R14E, Section 20 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan. The Development Plan (DP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. The refuse enclosure is not deep enough and too narrow to accommodate to containers. Also two different slab thickness' are called out. Revise as required. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/2396 E. River Rd_CDRC 2 |
| 09/17/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 3 - Enclosure detail does not meet the minimum requirements per DS6-01.4.0. Must demonstrate a 10 ft x 10 ft minimum inside clear container service area between the rear and side wall protectors/bollards and front gates or 20 ft x 10 ft for this double wide enclosure shown. Provide a post at the face of the CMU wall for mounting the gates to as opposed to mounting directly to the wall to prevent wall damage. Allow a minimum 22 ft gate opening. Bollard spacing must be dimensioned and show the following: a. 1 ft minimum from the inside edge of the bollard to the inside surface of the rear and side walls. b. Side bollards must show/annotate the front side bollard 2 ft from the front gates and the rear side bollard 4 ft from the front side bollard. Rear bollards are identified correctly within detail. 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 |
| 09/23/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0027 RIVER WALK/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/19/08 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.) If lots 1-140 are not a portion of this development plan delete from project location on location plan and indicate "Being a portion of River Walk Lots 1-140….Recorded in Pima County maps and plats Book 60 page 68." in Title Block. 2.) Per comment letter dated 6/09/08: Label (shade in) existing streets per Book 60 pg 68 on all corresponding sheets. |
| 09/25/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 24, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D08-0027 River Walk: Development Plan(8-22-08) Denied. Details for Zoning Condition #14 are not shown. |
| 09/26/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 26, 2008 Joe Zeman Leadstar Engineering 1010 Finance Center Drive, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D08-0027 River Walk Development Plan Dear Joe: Your submittal of August 22, 2008, 2008 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (ADA, Zoning, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, Addressing, ESD, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Color and dimensioned Building Elevations (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: 571-1961 |