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 - D09-0033
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/24/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/06/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0033 CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE/REVISED FINAL PLAT DATE: 09/30/09 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: Some of the books and pages are not correct or placed in the wrong location on the Location Plan. Please correct. Delete adjacent parcel numbers and owner information. Delete South from South Belvedere Avenue on sheets 2 and 3. Change sheet 2 of 2 to 2 of 3 on sheet 2. |
| 10/08/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 7, 2009 To: ANTHONY J VILLARREAL BARRY R BARCUS ARCHITECT, INC. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE Development Plan– 1st Submittal D09-033 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD'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. Sheet C 4.2: The 6” BCS invert should be shown below the water line @ crossing. Sheet C 4.2: The splice of the sewer line at the destroyed public manhole should be with 8” pipe not 6” as shown on plan. Sheet C 4.2: Show the recordation information for the proposed 30’ public sewer easement. Sheet C 4.2: Show the IMS #’s for all of the existing public sewer manholes. Sheet C 4.2: Per Map Guide the public sewer on site does not enter MH #5547-01 at 90 degrees. Please verify your alignment as shown on plan. Sheet C 4.2: It appears per plan that a fence will be constructed along 22nd St running across the easement. A 16’ minimum double locked gate will be required across the proposed easement to allow access for PCRWRD. Sheet C 4.3: Call out the IMS # for the existing public manhole shown on plan. A proposed method of connection (PMOC) form will be created by our department based on your plan. We will submit this form on your behalf to PCRWRD Permitting Department for approval. The PMOC approval will be required in order to obtain approval of this Development 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 . The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 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 $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of blue lines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. |
| 10/15/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D09-0033 Chapman Automotive Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 9, 2009 DUE DATE: October 22, 2009 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. Zoning has consulted with the Zoning Administrator to conform whether the proposed use on this site was considered a substantial change from the PDP. Per staff discussion it does appear that the proposed use is a substantial change and may require a Mayor and Council approval. At this time it is recommended that the applicant or consultant on this project contact Michael Wyneken and discuss the changes. Michael and Management will make a decision on the change of use and render a decision. Zoning has made the following comments under the assumption or anticipation of a positive decision. All comments must be addressed, additional documents submitted, and a decision letter from Michael Wyneken on the change of use. (Previous Comments: The plans submitted for this review were not completed per Development Standards 2-05 - "Development Plan format and Content". The plans appear to be an architectural site plan normally submitted with building plans. It is not easy to decipher what plan sheets are related to the development plan because it appears that plan sheets not usually associated with a development plan have been included in this package. Another submittal may not be accepted if development standards 2-05 are not used to prepare the development plan documents. In addition to the development 2-05 additional standards that must be addressed in 2-08, 2-09, 3-01, 3-05, and other standards that referred to by Engineering, Landscape, Solid Waste, and Traffic. Other criteria used include the development criteria in the Land Use Code. Most of the responses to the zoning comments indicate that the information requested is on the final plat. The development plan and the final plat are two separate submittal packages with separate standards that must be demonstrated on each plan. Comments related to the development plan must be addressed and depicted on the development plan. Comments related to the final plat must be addressed and depicted on the final plat. The "Final Plat Format and Content" is under development standards 2-03.6.0. When the development plan is revised to comply with development standards 2-05 include a sheet index with specific sheet numbers related to the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO plan, i.e. Development plan sheets should be labeled DP-1, DP-2 etc, landscape plan should be LS-1, LS-2 etc. See additional comments by the DSD Engineering reviewer.) It is clear that the last set of zoning comments were not addressed nor was a response letter provided stating how zoning comments were addressed. Zoning offers the following comments based on the new case number and the fact that no changes were made to the plan as requested. 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 October 21, 2010 unless otherwise advised by the CDRC manager. 2. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development standards 2-05 for format and content requirements for a development plan submittal. Zoning also reviewed the plan for compliance with the standards as it relates directly to items or standards, 2-08, 2-09, 3-01, 3-05 and LUC development criteria for the proposed use. 3. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes. Revise all lettering that is not a minimum of .12. DS 2-05.2.1.C 4. Per DS 2-05.2.1.B the drawing must be drawn a scale no greater than 40 feet to an inch. This drawing has been drawn at a scale of 1 to 50. Revise the drawing to a scale of 1 to 40. If an additional sheet is required please add and number the plan sheets appropriately. DS 2-01.2.1.B 5. For consistency with the requirements of DS 2-05 format and content, revise the location of the location map as follows: A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. a. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. b. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. c. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. DS 2-05.2.1.D 6. If the development plan consists of more than one (1) sheet, a small index drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet is to be placed on the first sheet. Exception: The project location map required in Sec. 2-05.2.1.D may be used, in lieu of a separate index map, on plans having two (2) or more sheets. DS 2-05.2.1.E 7. For consistency with COT Development Standards the following must be provided in the lower right corner of the plan sheets. It is acknowledged that the info as stated in .a has been added to the title block. The following title block information is to be provided, preferably in the lower right corner of the sheet. a. The proposed name of the project or, if there is no name, the proposed tenant's name or the property address. b. A brief legal description. C. The reference case numbers such as Development Plan case number, rezoning, DSMR, etc should be listed in the lower right corner next to the title block and should be readable from left to right. DS 2-05.2.1.G 8. The north arrow, contour interval, and scale should be placed together on each plan sheet, preferably in the upper right corner of the plat. DS 2-05.2.1.H 9. After reviewing the plan and from a reviewer's perspective it does not appear that the plan sheets follow the development plan format as outlined in Development Standards 2-05. Please review the following information and revise the plan sheets as noted where possible. 1. This plan should have a clear cover sheet or sheet one that includes the following information. a. The development plan sheets should be clearly labeled as development plan sheet one, two etc. b. The cover sheet should include the location map as noted in DS 2-05.2.1.D c. The north arrow, scale and contour intervals (The development (site) plan sheets should also include the north arrow scale and contour intervals d. If the site drawing will require two (2) sheets to present the site based on the required scale of 1"=40" an index drawing should be included as per DS 2-05.2.1.E. e. All relevant notes such as but not limited to project data, rezoning conditions, legend index (ds 2-05.2.1.J), construction notes and legal description etc. (Any keynotes relevant to a specific sheet should be noted on that sheet only.) f. If this plan is to be reviewed for development plan and tentative plat review ensure that all requirements of development standards 2-03 are included and addressed on the plan. While a lot of the standards for the DS 2-05 and DS 2-03 are similar there are different notes and requirements that are in one and not the other. Ensure that both standards are addressed on the plans. Additional comments may forthcoming on this item. 10. Under the Project Data text block revise or remove the section stating the "proposed zoning". The zoning has been effectuated to the C-1/C-2 per the previously recorded Plat. This note is not required. DS 2-05.2.2.B.1 11. This comment is related specifically to the listing of the rezoning conditions on the plan. Revise the words Zoning Stipulations to Rezoning Conditions on the first and second sheets. If the development plan has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ and [YR]-__ file numbers in the lower right corner of the plan or in that vicinity. 12. Under the project data text block list the proposed use of the site. Utilize the language from the Land Use Code. The use, development designator and any applicable subject to section must be listed. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 13. If applicable to this project and site, list zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment (B/A) variance, a Lot Development Option (LDO) modification, or a Project Design Option (PDO) modification, by case number, date of approval, what was approved, and conditions of approval. DS 2-05.2.2.B.6 14. If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or one that has been recorded which required review of a development plan, provide the subdivision name and file number (S[YR]-___), preferably in the lower right corner of the plan. (This plan is part of a re-subdivision of the previous plat.) DS 2-05.2.2.B.8 15. Under the sheet notes on sheet one (1) specifically note one (1), the SCZ overlay has been listed. None of the streets that this property fronts on is considered a Scenic Corridor. Remove the text related to the SCZ. This site is subject to compliance of the Major Streets and Routes requirements. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 16. If the Naylor Wash is a protected wash a Special Application review and approval will be required. Check with The Landscape Section Reviewer and Engineering Reviewer for more info on the wash. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 17. On sheet AS1.00, a note stating a 10 foot L.S. Setback is labeled along the north boundary of the site. It is not clear whether this 10 foot setback is intended as a note for the landscape buffer is ten feet from the property line or that it is the ten foot landscape buffer. Either way all required landscape buffers must be completely on the property. Also because it is not clear what this note is intended for it is not clear which line is supposed to be the property line. Clarify and revise as required to make it clear. DS 2-05.2.3.A 18. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. (Easements must be depicted on the development plan) DS 2-05.2.3.B 19. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. DS 2-05.2.3.C 20. If applicable to this site, applications where the property includes Protected Riparian Area within the 100-year floodplain shall conform to Development Standard 9-06.0. DS 2-05.2.3.I.4 21. Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the development plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) It is acknowledged that a final plat is being processed. DS 2-05.2.4.A 22. The note "Rezoned with Conditions to R-2, C9-02-21" next to the Vicinity Map on sheet AS1.00 must be removed. This rezoning has not been effectuated therefore the zoning has not changed. The current zoning is C-2. Also a strip of property along the south east driveway from Columbus is zoned R-2. Annotate the R-2 zoning for this are of land. See the Zoning maps or DSD Mapguide for actual location. DS 2-05.2.4.B 23. If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. A complete phasing plan with calculations must be included as part of the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.C a. If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so that later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. b. Generally a phased development plan shows all proposed phases of development and calculations for each phase. This plan has not been identified in this manner. The phase lines must be clearly delineated on the plan sheets, the development criteria calculations for each phase must be listed, which includes uses, parking FAR setbacks etc. All phases of development that are not to be developed at this time will have to be physically separated from the developed areas. Separation can be vertical curbing, permanent poles and cable etc. No activity must occur on any undeveloped phase. Demonstrate on the plan how this will be accomplished. DS 2-05.2.4.C DS 2-05.2.4.D.4. If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so that later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. 24. The ingress/egress PAAL from the site to Columbus must comply with DS 3-05 and 2-08 and LUC 3.3.0 as noted below in the following paragraphs. In this case I believe that the PAAL is of sufficient width and also complies with the setbacks required per 3-05. What the cross section design does not comply with is the minimum width of the sidewalk. The minimum width must be four feet clear which does not include the curb. The PAAL is an additional six (6) inches wider than required width, which can be utilized towards compliance for the width of the sidewalk. Revise the sidewalk width to four (4) feet. a. If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Sec. 3.3.0 of the LUC and Development Standard 3-05.0. b. All gated entries must be approved by the COT traffic Engineering Section, DSD Zoning and Engineering. While the west gate appears to be an entrance specifically for the Chapman Honda site it does appear that access to the restaurant to the west of the site is allowed. List the recording information on the cross access agreement or ingress/egress easement. Provide a copy of the document for review with the next submittal. Also a gate is proposed on belvedere which does not meet the minimum draft guidelines for gated entries. Contact Jose Ortiz about the gated entries. Clarify what purpose the gates at the south end of the property serve. The gates appear to open onto a wash area where the top of bank does not appear to be paved. Nor does it appear to be a vehicle access area. Vehicular access will not be allowed through this gate. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response to this comment. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 25. If applicable to this site please address the following; Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development plan has been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. DS 2-05.2.4.E 26. If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, etc.) DS 2-05.2.4.F 27. If applicable to this site, all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G 28. All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. On zoning setbacks, if the building is proposed for location at a greater distance from the property line than the required setback, show only the dimension of the distance between the building and the property line. If the setback's point of measurement is not the property line, include the distance from the property line to the point of measurement. DS 2-05.2.4.I 29. Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0. It appears that the pedestrian circulation from Belvedere Avenue has been provided in compliance with 2-08. The following items related to pedestrian circulation must be addressed. a. Per cross section 17/AS2.00 the sidewalk is dimensioned at three feet ten inches. The minimum width of the sidewalk must be 4 feet clear, (does not include the curb). Revise the cross section to clearly demonstrate that a four (4) foot wide sidewalk will provided. In addition the sidewalk must connect to the onsite pedestrian circulation. The sidewalk appears to stop right at the southwest property line. b. The sidewalk adjacent to the end of the center row of parking spaces must be constructed with accessible ramps and truncated domes. The plan does not indicate the accessible ramps or domes have been provided in this location. c. Demonstrate on the plan that the portion of sidewalk from the east side of the building is physically separated from the vehicular use area. Physical Separation can include raised concrete sidewalk, vertical or extruded curb along the edge. .d Show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. DS 2-05.2.4.K and .L 30. Label the height of the canopy. DS 2-05.2.4.N 31. List the loading zone table used to calculate the number of loading zones required. DS 2-05.2.4.O 32. Please clarify if this site was considered to be a stand alone use as a carwash or was it considered as an extension of the Chapman Dealership? The difference is quite significant one way or the other, for parking and other development criteria. Also per the PDP it appears that the site was to be a Auto Dealership. Additional comments will be forthcoming based on the response and staff recommendations. DS 2-05.2.4.P 33. The requirement for bicycle parking cannot be determined at this time until comment 32 is clarified. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 34. Show sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. See Engineering comments for more info on where the triangles are required and the distances needed. DS 2-05.2.4.R 35. Demonstrate maneuverability in and out of the dumpster locations. Also demonstrate maneuverability in and out of the loading zones. DS 2-05.2.4.T 36. Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Clarify how all rezoning conditions have been addressed on this plan. If a separate response memo is needed to explain compliance with the rezoning conditions please provide in addition to the response memo to the reviewers comments. It is clear that some of the conditions may not apply to this use. DS 2-05.2.4.U 37. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 38. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal location requirements can be met. DS 2-05.2.4.W 39. See the landscape reviewers comments related to required landscaping and screening. DS 2-05.2.4.X 40. Please keep in mind that zoning's review was made based on the three sheets labeled as AS1.00, AS1.01, and AS2.00. The development plan format was not followed therefore unless otherwise noted all zoning comments are relevant to these sheets and must be addressed accordingly. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D090033dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 10/20/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/20/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Chapman Detail Building D09-0033, T14S, R14E, SECTION 22 Ref. D07-0039, S07-137 and S09-059 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on September 24, 2009 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. The comments that were made on the previous submittals have not been addressed properly. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the development plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Identify the offsite and onsite watersheds that impact the site and quantify the amount of runoffs they generate. Use the City of Tucson "Flood Peak Estimator" method and provide the Hydrological Data Sheets for every watershed. Show, on the drainage exhibits, the different offsite and onsite watersheds that impact the site. 2. Check if any of the proposed improvements, including the 6' walls, will cause an unacceptable encroachment on the existing regulatory floodplains. 3. Provide the retention basins infiltration rates based on the findings of the Geotechnical Report. Please be advised that according to Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the maximum disposal time for 10-acre watershed is 12 hours. Revise the drainage report accordingly. 4. The main purpose for runoff retention is water recharge. If the infiltration rates within the basins are not acceptable, investigate the possibility of bleeding out the proposed basins or allowing the calculated retention volumes to drain into Naylor Wash where the wash's sandy bottom has a better infiltration rate and provides a better recharge environment. Draining the site into the wash shall not coincide with the wash's peak time. 5. Provide a copy of the geotechnical report that addresses retention basin percolation rate to verify the dry-up calculations in the Drainage Report. 6. The proposed building finished floor elevation shown on Page 4 is slightly different from the elevation shown on the drainage exhibit. 7. According the information provided in Map Guide, the site soil type is "B". The retention basin analysis assumes type "C" soil. Redo the retention basin required volume calculations utilizing the runoff coefficient based on type "B" soil and revise the P1 to 1.5. 8. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 9. Calculate the required erosion hazard setback, from Naylor Wash, based on the equations found in Chapter 7 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ". Additionally, it is not clear the purpose of the proposed bank protection. The bank protection, as proposed, is not acceptable. The wash side slopes are too steep for the proposed dumped rip rap. A more durable form of bank protection shall be proposed and the design calculations shall be included in the Drainage Report. The text in the Drainage Report shall also clarify if the bank protection is designed for the 100-year floodplain level or for a more frequent storm. Is the purpose to reduce the erosion setback line? The bank protection shall have the proper key-in's and toe-down, based on scour depth and erosion hazard calculations, to prevent the bank protection from being undermined in a major storm. 10. The Drainage Basin Area Map does not show all proposed drainage information. Revise the map to provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage and surface flow arrows, inlets and outlets, maintenance access ramps, sidewalk scuppers, basins ponding limits and water surface elevations, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. 11. All proposed spillways and splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report. 12. According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. 13. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated into the development by conveying surface flow and rooftop drainage to designated water harvesting areas. Please address, in details, how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. Copies of the above-referenced manual can be obtained from the Engineering Counter. Please be advised that for water harvesting purposes, the landscaped areas shall be depressed a maximum of 6". Please be advised that aggressive water harvesting may significantly reduce the volume of required retention. 14. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Additionally, the proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be include in the Report. 15. 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 especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. 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. 16. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the detention/retention basins shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations. 17. The drainage report does not address the need for roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-08.4.1.E. and D.S. 2-08.5.1.E, 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks and pedestrian paths 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. 18. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows all proposed drainage information, including dimensions and construction information. The exhibit shall provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage and surface flow arrows, inlets and outlets, maintenance access ramps, sidewalk scuppers, basins ponding limits and water surface elevations, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. This information shall be used for providing the proposed drainage scheme on the Development Plan and Grading Plan. 19. All proposed spillways and splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report. This comment was previously made on the first submittal. The response to this comment, which states that "Calculations for the concrete scuppers and storm drain pipes are included …" does not answer the comment. 20. Buildings set backs need to be determined from the proposed retention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. Additionally, the Geotechnical Report shall recommend how existing and proposed slopes shall be protected and stabilized. 21. Naylor Wash erosion hazard setback shall be determined and the location of the proposed building shall be based on the location of the setback. 22. The proposed building appears to be touching the existing floodplain. A floodplain use permit is required for the building and all proposed work within the regulatory floodplain. The building shall be set at least 1' above Naylor Wash's water surface elevation just upstream of the building. 23. Provide an encroachment analysis for all proposed improvements within Naylor Wash regulatory floodplain. 24. The drainage report does not address retention basin and drainage structure maintenance requirements and responsibility in details. Additionally, provide the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures including the retention system. 25. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for all proposed drainage structures and retention basins shall be included in the Report. 26. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. The submitted plans do not comply with the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.0. The submittal appears to be a combination of architectural site plans and grading plans that are not easy to review as a development plan. Resubmit a development plan, which complies with the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.0. including the proper sheet numbering. 2. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 3. The Development plan does not show the existing lot lines. The Final Plat that removes the existing lot lines should have been submitted and approved first before the development plan is submitted. 4. List the applicable rezoning case number, in the lower right corner, next to the title block (D.S. 2-05.2.1.K.). 5. The location map is preferred to be in the upper right corner of the first sheet (D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.). 6. Provide a title block as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.G. 7. Provide a legend as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.J. 8. Provide all applicable general notes listed in D.S. 2-05.2.2. 9. Add a general note that addresses the drainage structure 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. 10. It does not appear that the basis of bearing is called out on the plan. Additionally, the tie to the Basis of Bearing is not clearly depicted (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). Revise as necessary. 11. Provide a recent property title report to help verify the depicted existing onsite easements (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 12. Verify, either on the plan or in written documentation, compliance with Rezoning conditions 1. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 2, 3, and 12. A and B. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U). 13. Provide the recordation data, the width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for the adjacent right of way as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C.). 14. Provide existing ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page (D.S. 2-05.2.3.E.). 15. Show any existing drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F.). 16. It is not clear to what civil plans the keynotes refer. 17. The proposed building appears to be touching the existing floodplain. A floodplain use permit is required for the building and all proposed work within the regulatory floodplain. The building shall be set at least 1' above Naylor Wash's water surface elevation just upstream of the building. 18. Provide the Naylor Wash 100-year floodplain ponding depth in the inventory parking area. Please be advised that vehicles can not be parked in flooding areas that are 1' in depth or deeper. 19. Provide the width of Belvedere Avenue entrance and driveway to ensure that the provided width is adequate for vehicular use. Please be advised that the location of the trash enclosure is not appropriate and it encroaches on the driveway. Revise as needed. 20. Retention areas shall include the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.1). 21. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 22. Provide locations and types of all drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 23. Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot to provide reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.4). 24. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 25. Provide all applicable building setback lines including erosion hazard setback, retention basin setbacks and sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.). 26. Provide the widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks and walkways (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K & L). 27. Trash enclosure location does not appear to be appropriate. The enclosures appear to be inaccessible and impede traffic within the driveway. Revise as needed. Additionally, the trash enclosure and its gate details shall be revised to meet the City of Tucson trash enclosure standard detail 6-01.0. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T.). 28. Reference Standard Detail 207 (City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details for Public Improvements) for all proposed wheelchair ramps. 29. Reference Standard Detail 106 (City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details for Public Improvements) for the proposed steel pipe bollard. 30. Demonstrate how the site runoff including roof drainage will be directed towards water harvesting areas before it leaves the site. 31. The treatment of any proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report and verify compliance with its recommendations. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. Unless the retention basins are provided with bleed pipes, provide verification that the retention basins will percolate within 12 hours. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses retention basins percolation. 35. Provide a detail for the single trash enclosure shown at the southeastern corner of the project. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 39. The Development Plan can not be approved until the Final Plat is approved and recorded to ensure the elimination of the existing lot lines. Engineering recommends delaying the Development Plan submittal until the Final Plat process is completed or close to completion. 40. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan Landscape Plan: 1. Landscape Plan is acceptable to Engineering and Floodplain Review. However, Landscape Plan might need to be revised in accordance with any revisions to the Development Plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 10/22/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Joseph Linville Landscape Section Development Plan/Landscape Plan Review The Final Plat, SWPPP, and Grading and Paving Plans have not been thoroughly reviewed at this time by the Landscape Section. 1) Please provide a response letter that details any revisions resulting from the following comments and any responses deemed appropriate. 2) Landscaping proposed in 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. Approvals are also required for proposed plantings in the public drainageway or related 16' access easement. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. L1 indicates some landscaping along Belvedere Street, Sheet AS1 indicates a 10' landscape setback in the right of way and the landscape plans show planters in the access easement for the drainageway. 3) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 4) Per condition of rezoning (C9-96-10), the drainage access and maintenance easement is to remain unobstructed. The development/landscape plans indicate the proposed wall obstructs access more than allowable. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with the condition. 5) An additional Native Plant Preservation Plan or approval is required for any construction or disturbance of public right-of-way areas (street or drainageway) adjacent the site. Contact Gary Wittwer, the Department of Transportation Landscape Architect, at 791-5100 for additional information. LUC 3.8.4.2 Alternatively, right-of-way areas may be incorporated into the submitted plans. The approved Native Plant Preservation Plan can then be used to obtain any required permits from the Department of Transportation where an NPPO clearance is required. 6) Revise the plans to indicate the same information regarding walls or barriers. Sheet C2 and associated details differ from AS1.00 regarding the 22nd Street frontage. Walls are shown where a pipe barrier is proposed. Walls cannot be located within the 10' onsite street landscape border. 7) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) and Mitigation plan 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. The response letter indicated that an ERR is not required, please forward any documentation you have received to that effect. 8) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. DS 9-06.2.2.C.4. Refer to DS 9-06.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply. The rezoning conditions require that the wash be retained in basically a natural state. The Native Plant Preservation Plans indicate a grading area that encompasses the wash. 9) The Landscape plans for the project are required to document compliance with any mitigation plan requirements (see comment 12). A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements for the floodplain areas 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. 10) Cross sections on sheet C1.2 indicates a 6' wall in the street landscape border that is not indicated on the development plans. Walls may not be located within the street landscape border, except as allowed per LUC 3.7.3.2.C 11) Coordinate the labeling of the parking lot/display area on the site and landscape plans. Some code requirements apply depending on whether an area is parking or display. 12) The notes on sheet L6 were truncated at the right side of the printed plans received. Submit plans with the complete notes. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 10/22/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS - CDRC Community Planning D09-0033, Chapman Automotive: DP (3rd submittal) Comments due: 10/22/09 Items Reviewed: · Development Plan (DP) & Landscape Plan (LP) · C9-96-10, change of conditions and Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), 1/4/2006 M&C Comments: This submittal is conditionally approved, subject to addressing comments #1 and 2 below, and revising DP sheet AS1.00 as per comment # 3. A resubmittal is not required. 1) Regarding the security lighting that needs to be provided along the southern perimeter of the site (rezoning condition #4), the response letter indicated a photometric plan will be provided with the construction documents, and this is acceptable. However, we will need to place a hold on the building permit, to ensure the rezoning condition has been satisfied. Before staff will sign off on this DP, someone needs to come into our office and obtain an activity number for the building permit (a T09CM number) so we can flag this. 2) Like the above, regarding improvements that need to be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits (rezoning condition # 12.a - Columbus Blvd. access, Naylor Wash improvements; and screening, landscaping, sidewalk and curbs along Belvedere north of Naylor Wash), before staff will sign off on this DP, someone needs to come into our office and obtain an activity number for the building permit, so we can place a hold on the occupancy permit. 3) Per staff's previous comment, please label the existing 16-foot access and maintenance easement along the north bank of Naylor Wash, on DP sheet AS1.00. 4) Please note that the PDP approved by the Mayor and Council on January 4, 2006 indicated a 25-foot, one-way vehicle transport route beginning at Columbus Boulevard, and extending east then northeast through the site, connecting to 22nd Street near the northeast corner of the site. Plans submitted for the dealership building (i.e., subsequent phase) must clearly identify the vehicle transport route as per the approved PDP. Please feel free to contact this reviewer to discuss any of the above. Reviewed by: J. Hershenhorn, 10/21/09 (520) 837-6965 joanne.hershenhorn@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/26/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | October 26, 2009 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09-0033 PROJECT NAME: Chapman Automotive PROJECT ADDRESS: 1328 S Belvedere Ave PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Provide a copy of the site plan associated with Re-zoning Case C9-96-10 to verify compliance with the noted Re-zoning conditions. 3. The gated entry off of Columbus Blvd - Verify how vehicles that do not have access through this gated entry can turnaround and exit face forward back onto Columbus Blvd. 4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/28/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No change shown from previous submittal. Enclosure positioning does not provide adequate maneuverability to position collection vehicle perpendicular to enclosure without conflicting with adjacent canopy. DS 6-01.4.1.C & refer to figure 1 for turning radii's. 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 |
| 10/29/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 29, 2009 Anthony J. Villarreal Barry R. Barcus Architect, Inc. 5333 N. 7th Street, C-123 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Subject: D09-0033 Chapman Automotive Development Plan Dear Anthony: Your submittal of September 23, 2009 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 8 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Addressing, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Traffic, ENV SVCS, PDSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Copy of Site Plan associated with Rezoning Case C9-96-10 (Traffic, PDSD) 2 Copies ERR Report & Mitigation Plan (Landscape, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: (602) 264-2542 |