Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0013
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/09/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/10/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/13/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Date Case Number Project Address May 13, 2011 D11-0013 QUEBEDEAUX AUTO DEALESHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: The proposed QUEBEDEAUX AUTO DEALESHIP Development plan, location at 3566 E. Speedway Boulevard, Case No.D11-0013 meets the minimum standard requirements for Environmental Services and is approved. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/17/2011 | GWITTWE1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The proposed refuse storage/pickup location is required to be located behind a street landscape border per LUC Table.3.7.2-I. Even if the location is allowed per the comment below (with the access drive crossing the landscape border) the actual enclosure structure is required to be located behind the 10' wide border, providing a greater setback and a less prominent appearance in the streetscape which is primarily residential in character. A LUC Variance or DDO would be required to modify this requirement. 2) New development is required to provide on-site refuse storage, collection, and pickup areas with service access from within the tract or from an alley adjacent to the tract per DS 6-01.4.1.A. A DSMR is required modify this Development Standard. 3) Revise the screen wall detail for the rezoning site regarding graffiti resistance and decorative design. Clarify which sides are fluted or split-face and specify the type of graffiti resistant material employed and if it is proposed on both sides of the wall. C9-07-33 4) Landscape borders 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. The correspondence received on this item appears to allow only a 5' landscaping expansion in to the specified rights-of-way. The plans propose an encroachment in excess of 7 feet. Provide verification, in writing, of any additional approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements and add the Standards for ROW landscaping to the plans. 5) Per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 "up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area". Revise the plans as necessary. A LUC Variance or DDO would be required to modify this requirement. Even if the City Engineer allows more than 5 feet, the code requirement would still apply. 6) Revise the plans to address following: "There are situations where the LUC allows up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) feet of landscaping to be located within the right-of-way. The required landscaping may be located within the right-of-way only if there are no utilities within the same area, the required landscaping area is extended only to the back of sidewalk, and the City Engineer's Office approves such use in the right-of-way." DS 2-06.3.4.C.1 7) A DDO or variance will be required to allow the existing walls in the street landscape to meet the screening requirements of the LUC. A DDO or variance will also be required to retain existing fencing in lieu of masonry wherever the site adjoins residential zoned property. 8) A DDO or variance is also required wherever the proposal is to provide less than the minimum width street landscape border. LUC 3.7.2.4 9) The northern portion of the Holly Avenue landscape border is noted as having a 5' high vegetative screen. We advise that the exceptions in LUC 3.7. allow for a 30" screen when the zone or use across the street is not residential. A portion of the 6' high wall, south of the driveway extends into the SVT. 10) Multi-trunk trees as proposed in the SVT'S along Speedway Boulevard pose a potential safety concern. Revise the plans to conform to DS 2-06.3.8.G and consult with the TDOT landscape Architect on tree selection. 11) Landscape border coverage calculations do not include the areas for screen plantings per DS 2-06.3.7. Revise the plans as necessary. 12) Provide information regarding the required Miramonte Neighborhood review. Please forward any comments and responses. C9-07-33 13) Clearly indicate the water harvesting proposal on the Development Plan as required by the conditions of rezoning. |
| 05/26/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | May 26, 2011 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D11-0013 PROJECT NAME: Quebedeaux Auto Dealership PROJECT ADDRESS: 3566 E Speedway Bl 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. The existing access points along Speedway Blvd shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 fig 6) 3. An existing light pole may be impacted with the modification of the existing driveway. If applicable, relocate the light pole and provide confirmation from Ernie Encinas that the new location is acceptable to the city. 4. A permit 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 |
| 06/01/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Jackson Jenkins Director 201 N. Stone Ave., 8th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 PH: (520) 740-6500 FAX: (520) 620-0135 May 25, 2011 To: RICHARD CORDOVA DOWL HKM Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: QUEBEDEAUX BUICK - GMC Development Plan – 1st Submittal D11-0013 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, 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/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 2: Call out the IMS #’s for the existing public manholes in Richey Blvd and the construction plan #/ pipe size for the existing public sewer line. Also show the sewer line continuing north across Speedway Blvd. Sheet 2: Show the point of connection to the existing public sewer line as west of MH # 4521-11. Sheet 2: Show the size and slope of the proposed private BCS. Also mark the BCS as private. Sheet 1: Fill in the blanks for Wastewater Management Note #12. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions please call me at the phone number above. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:______ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 06/01/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D11-0013 QUEBEDEUX AUTO DEALERSHIP/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: May 31, 2011 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: Delete or correct “NW ¼“(the brief legal description) under the Location Map, on all title blocks and on the top of sheet 1. Correct the Legal Description on sheet 1. Delete E. of E. First Street on sheets 2 and 3. |
| 06/03/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#237040 June 1, 2011 DOWL HKM Attn: Richard Cordova 4626 E. Ft. Lowell Rd # 5 Tucson, AZ 85712 To Richard Cordova: SUBJECT: Quebedeaux Auto Dealership D11-0013 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 23, 2011 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. There are poles in way of new proposed Palo Verde abandonment & poles & anchors in way of proposed storage building & in route of traffic flow. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The customer is responsible for the new trenching to relocate them as well as the relocation cost. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Rich Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-918-8726 Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: City of Tucson, (Email only) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 06/06/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | CDRC Review Planning and Development Services Dept., Community Planning Review D11-0013, Quebedeaux Auto Dealership, resubmittal Comments Due: 6/7/11 Items reviewed: Development Plan, Landscape Plan Previous submittal, D08-0052 Rezoning conditions, C9-07-33 Comments: 1. Per rezoning condition #16, the landscape plan is to be presented to the Miramonte Neighborhood Association (MNA) for review and comment, and reasonable comments are to be addressed, to the greatest extent possible. Please provide a letter from the MNA, and other documentation as needed to demonstrate compliance with this condition. 2. The plans are not approved. A resubmittal is required. Reviewed by: J. Hershenhorn, 837-6976 6/3/11 F:\Shardir\UPDfiles\Development Review\CASE_REVIEW\CDRC\2011 Cases\D11-0013_QbdxAuto.doc |
| 06/06/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Quebedeaux Auto Dealership Development Plan (1st Review) D08-0052 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 6, 2011 DUE DATE: June 7, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 8, 2012 2. Based on discussions with the Zoning Administrator this plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the entire site. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 Remove the D08-0052 development plan number from the plan as this development plan was never approved. Provide the D11-0013 development plan number in the lower right corner of the plan. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A Based on your review comment response letter provide a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal. The three parcels located east of Richey will require the same documentation. Provide a note on the plan stating "COVENANT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF REAL PROPERTY RECORDED UNDER SEQUENCE NUMBER 5. _______________." 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a two-way parking area access lane (PAAL) width for the two-way PAAL shown near the southeast corner of Bldg. 3. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Keynote 43 calls out "SEE ARECH. PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS AREA." If new structures are proposed for the new improvements shown along the north and east side of Bldg 1 provide the required setback dimensions based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route is required to connect to any adjacent street. That said show the required continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route to both Holly Avenue and Palo Verde blvd. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 provide a sidewalk that connects the "EXISTING SHOWROOM AND OFFICE BUILDING" to the "EXISTING 2-STORY USED CAR BUILDING" to the "EXISTING COLLISION CENTER BUILDING" to the "PROPOSED TEMP. SALES BUILDING". This sidewalk is required to meet of D.S. 2-08.4.1 & 5.1. Based on your response letter a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR) will be applied for. If approved provide a note on the plan stating the DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What was Modified, and any Conditions of Approval. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The proposed striped area, adjacent to the accessible vehicle parking space located west of Bldg. 6, is required to be a sidewalk that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-08.4.1 & 5.1. 11. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Provide as a note, the square footage of each structure and the specific use. 12. You provided the over all FAR for the entire site. Provide the proposed for each zone. Zoning acknowledges that it appears that the allowed FAR will not be exceeded for each zone. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M The "PROPOSED/EXISTING FAR" needs to be broke out for each zone. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per Ordinance #10884 LUC Section 3.4.5 Retail Trade Use Group zero (0) loading spaces are required for Vehicle Rental & Sales. That said revise the loading space calculation to reflect the correct number of required loading spaces. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The accessible vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. Per IBC Table 1106.1 205 vehicle parking spaces provided 7 accessible spaces required. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Rental and Sales, it does not appear that the required Short-Term & Long-Term bicycle parking is correct and that the provided Long-Term Bicycle parking is not correct. Two (2) Short-term and four (4) Long-Term are required. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R It does not appear that the far side sight-visibility-triangles (SVT's) along Speedway Blvd. are shown correctly. See D.S. 3-01.5.1.B.1 and Engineering review comments. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R Per D.S. 3-01.5.1A1 Lines of sight will not be obscured between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet through a triangular area adjacent to a driveway, a PAAL, an alley, or a street. That said there is a vehicle parking space that encroaches into the sight-visibility-triangle located near the northwest corner of Bldg. #1. Also there are several angled vehicle parking spaces that encroaches into the sight-visibility-triangle located along the east side of Bldg 3. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T It does not appear that the proposed location of the dumpster enclosure will work, see Environmental Services & Engineering comments 19. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. 20. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0013 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 06/07/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Zoning may require a continuous pedestrian circulation path to both Holly Avenue and Palo Verde Blvd. These pedestrian circulation paths must be accessible and be considered as accessible routes and governed by the 2006 IBC, Section 1104 and ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 402. a. Please provide all necessary marked crossings in compliance with ICC/ANSI 117.1 Sections 106, 406.12 and 406.13. b. Insure all accessible routes both new and existing meet the slope requirements of ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3. 2. Provide a continuous accessible route that connects the existing showroom and office building to the existing 2 story used car building to the existing collision center building and to the proposed temporary sales building. 3. The accessible vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per IBC Table 1106.1 205 vehicle parking spaces provided 7 accessible spaces required. 4. At building 6, the marked crossing from the accessible parking space needs to have detectable warning strips as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Sections 406.12 and 406.14. 5. The accessible parking aisle west of building six can not be the accessible route. It may be adjoin the accessible route, ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 502.4.1. Please separate the two at this location. 6. At detail 2/6, please provide exact design parking layouts, not generic plan layout. This does not represent the angled accessible parking space shown on sheet 4. 7. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. 8. Provide a large scale detail of the actual designed and different types of accessible parking layouts, curb ramps and sidewalk ramps. Show all accessible dimensions, slopes, signage, access to accessible routes and detectable warning strips as required. Generic typical details are not acceptable. a. Provide and identify 1 of every six accessible as "Van Accessible". END OF REVIEW |
| 06/07/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 7, 2011 SUBJECT: Quebedeaux Pontiac-GMC Expansion Development Plan- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 3566 E Speedway Blvd, T145S R14E Sec09 Ward 6 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0013 SUMMARY: Engineering Section of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan, Drainage Report No. 1 (DOWL Engineers, 04MAY11), and Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies Inc., 27MAR07). Engineering Section does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Comments listed below maybe new or restated for review of D11-0013. The redline comments from D08-0052 have been taken into consideration with this review of the Development Plan, however since the old plan was from 2008 additional requirements maybe required. 1) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: Provide the Development Plan number (D11-0013) in the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. Remove the reference to D08-0052 from the plan. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.6: Revise General Note # 6 to reflect any applicable DSMR Numbers. List the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and conditions of approval. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.1: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label both sides of the 100-year floodplain limits that exist within the right-of-way of Richey Blvd. Currently Sheet 4 only shows the west side limits with water surface elevations, however since the 100-year floodplain limits effect the parcels next door that is part of this use it needs to be labeled in plan view on both Sheets 4 and 5. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.3: Revise the Legend on Sheet 1 to include a symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals and 100-year floodplain limits on the Development Plan. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.A: Provide the proposed referenced Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property for Zoning Section approval. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.1: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label and show all required 25-foot radii at all PAAL entrance points off of Speedway Blvd. Sine the project is full code compliant all PAAL access from Speedway must provide the minimum 25-foot radii. Refer to comments from Jose Ortiz, PE. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan to provide the minimum 24-foot dimension for the 2-way parking area access lane (PAAL) entrance located along Richey Blvd and the southwest corner of Building 3. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label and dimension the required sight visibility triangles for the intersection of Richey Blvd and Speedway Blvd. Provide both Near and Far side dimensions to verify that no structures or vegetation is located with in the SVTs, revise the Landscape Plan to reflect the new SVT locations. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Revise Sheet 5 to provide a keynote legend for all referenced Keynotes on the Sheet. Provide the street name, WSEL for the roadway per the Drainage Report and 100-year floodplain limits all on Sheet 5. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Clarify Keynote #43 and the reference to the Architectural Plans for proposed improvements. All proposed improvements must be clearly shown on the Development Plan and all calculations and setbacks must be provided. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to provide a pedestrian circulation path from all buildings to the pedestrian circulation paths located along all public right-of-ways, i.e. Holly Avenue and Palo Verde Road. Also all buildings must be connected with a required pedestrian circulation path to meet DS Sec.2-08, any proposed DSMR will need to be approved and clearly noted prior to Development Plan approval. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. Any proposed DSMR will need to be approved and clearly noted prior to Development Plan approval. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise the Development Plan to clearly show that all requirements for sight visibility triangles per DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1 are meet. Specifically no proposed vehicular parking space maybe located within a SVT. Per Sheet 4 there is a parking spot adjacent to the northwest corner of Building 1 within the far side SVT of Speedway (Far Side dimensions for MS&R streets with a median can be reduced to a 20-foot stem with a 30 foot leg). Also there appears to be angled parking spaces adjacent to Building 3 that are located within the SVTs of the PAALs that will block the clear line of sight, revise. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: It is acknowledged that both TDOT and Environmental Services have approved the proposed location of the refuse container. However if there are any discrepancies between the Development Plan and the required right-of-way use permit or PIA plan then a revised Development Plan maybe required. Verify with Environmental Services that the location is still acceptable along the cul-de-sac design of Palo Verde Road. 15) Approval from TDOT Traffic for the proposed Public Roadway improvements (all public roadways and cul-de-sac design) will be required. Contact Jose Ortiz at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov for all Public Roadway requirements and PIA application procedures. 16) Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. GRADING PLAN: 17) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project. A grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after Development Plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Development Plan approval. 18) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the Development Plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 19) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) is applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Section Planning & Development Services |
| 06/08/2011 | ANDY DINAUER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Passed | |
| 06/08/2011 | GARY WITTWER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Denied | TDOT must review revised plan to ensure landscaping in the ROW meets TDOT standards. |
| 06/13/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 13, 2011 Richard Cordova DOWL HKM 166 W. Alameda St. Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D11-0013 QUEBEDEAUX AUTO DEALERSHIP Development Plan Dear Richard: Your submittal of May 6, 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 10 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Traffic, Landscape, Planning, Engineering, Wastewater, Addressing, Zoning, Zoning HC Site, TDOT*, PDSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Planning, Engineering, Zoning, TDOT, PDSD) 2 Copies MNA Letter (Planning, PDSD) 3 Copies Zoning Specified Covenant Documentation (Zoning, Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $39.00 (Wastewater) * TDOT;Gary Wittwer 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) 624-0384 |