Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Number: D08-0039
Parcel: 141113790

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: REVISION - DEV PLAN

Permit Number - D08-0039
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/01/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/02/2011 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 8174 Camino de Cafe
D08-0039
Development Plan (Revision)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 2, 2011

DUE DATE: March 15, 2011

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. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension from the striped accessible access isle, south, to the striped pedestrian area. As this is a two-way PAAL the minimum width is twenty-four (24) feet.

2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The proposed striped area located along the south side of the PAAL, south of the accessible vehicle parking space is required to be a four (4) sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area.

3. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There appears to be some type of pedestrian ramp that encroaches into the 12 x 55 loading space, clarify what the item is and if it is some type of obstruction remove it from the loading space.

4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Per LUC Section 3.3.3.5Bicycle Parking Requirements. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is calculated as a percentage of the total number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. If the calculated number of required bicycle parking spaces is less than two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2) and LUC Section 3.3.7.8.B Any time Class 2 parking is required, Class 1 parking may be substituted on a space-by-space basis, provided the Class 2 parking is not reduced more than fifty (50) percent. That said the minimum number of Class two bicycle parking spaces is two (2) and cannot be eliminated. Revise the bicycle parking spaces calculation to read "2 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, 2 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED". If you proposed to replace one (1) class 2 with a class one state so on the plan based on LUC Section 3.3.7.8.B. Detail 4 Sheet 4 is still required.

5. For the proposed gates, vehicle and man, provide a note on the plan stating "GATES ARE TO REMAIN OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS".

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\D08-0039dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan.
03/02/2011 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Please provide details regarding 20' wide gate into property. Must be unobstructed (no center post). Review section 503.6 of the 2006 IFC. Be advised that the city of Tucson has amended this section of the code. Verify gate meets all aforementioned requirements, and provide information on plan. Install Fire Department approved lock box.
03/08/2011 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/08/2011,


TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering

SUBJECT: Lot 16 Brown/Rita Ranch
D08-0039, T15S, R15E, SECTION 27

RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on March 01, 2011

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:

1. Ensure that the trash container will be accessible when the collection service is provided. Provide documentation that verifies resolution of this issue with Environmental Services.
2. Ensure that the proposed gates will be installed out side the width of the P.A.A.L. to prevent reducing the width less than 24'.
3. Show the locations of all proposed revisions numbered 2.
4. According to the provided keynote information, it appears that Revision #2 is being revised again and/or eliminated (e.g. Keynote #6). Clarify why.
5. Since the word "depressed" is being removed from Keynotes #7 and 17, is Detail 6/4 still valid?
6. It appears that the proposed grading has also been changed. How does this change affect the cut and fill quantities?
7. Provide filter fabric underneath all proposed gravel.
8. The 15' private water easement shall be dedicated and recorded. The recordation information shall be provided on the plan.
9. Quantify the amount of runoff increase due to the proposed additional pavement and determine if the proposed 10' curb cut is still sufficient.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Drainage Report
03/09/2011 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Submit any revised plans for an additional review.
03/10/2011 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
03/11/2011 JOHN WILLIAMS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

March 11, 2011

D. Floyd Thumm
Physical Resource Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 36985
Tucson, Arizona 85740

Subject: D08-0039 LOT 16 BROWN/RITA RANCH Development Plan

Dear Floyd:

Your submittal of March 1, 2011 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 set of 6 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning HC, PDSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD)


Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893.


Sincerely,





John Williams
Planning Technician

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: (520) 690-1769
03/11/2011 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. The accessible parking ramp does not work.
a. The slope on the South side conflicts with the concrete walk coming from the east side of the building.
2. The marked crossing does not work:
a. Relocate the detectable warning to the west end of the accessible parking aisle, just prior to entering the PAAL.
b. Delete the marked crossing parallel with the curb to the curb ramp at the radii of the curb. Provide a new curb ramp complying with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 405 or 406, at the west end of the marked crossing coming from the accessible aisle. Extend the accessible route 6" higher than the PAAL, from this new curb ramp along the curb and connect with the concrete accessible route at the radii curb. Delete the curb ramp shown here at the radii curb.
3. Show the location of the accessible parking signage on the site plan and all enlarged details.
4. Revise detail 3 as per comments 1 and 2 above.
5. At detail 5, mount the larger sign at 7' a.f.g.
6. Insure all accessible route slopes comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 403.3
7. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment above has been addressed. Please address all comments in writing.
END OF COMMENTS