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 - D11-0036
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2011 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/25/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Obtain a Variance or DDO for the modified landscape border widths where the minimum requirements of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 are not met. 2) Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06 3) Fifty (50) percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover, in addition to any required screening. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two (2) years from the date of planting. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5 Provide calculations on the landscape plans. 4) Revise the plans to clarify how the screening requirements are met along 1st /Euclid Av. and Hampton Street. 5) An interior landscape border will be required in lieu of the existing alley. See 3.7.2.4.B.3 Clarify when the alley will be vacated. It should be prior to DP approval. Revise the landscape requirements and keynotes on the landscape plans and other sheets as necessary. |
| 10/25/2011 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/25/2011, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Walgreens at SEC of Grant and 1st Avenue D11-0036, T14S, R14E, SECTION 06 RECEIVED: Development Plan on October 12, 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: Drainage Report: 1. Prepare a drainage statement/report to address onsite and offsite drainage and runoff retention/detention provision. Development Plan: 1. This project has been submitted for rezoning. The rezoning process has not been completed yet. A complete and an effective review can not be conducted until the rezoning process is completed and the rezoning conditions have been determined. Additional submittal(s) will be required to ensure that the rezoning conditions have been complied with. 2. Provide the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 3. Provide the Section, township, and range, below the location map. Additionally show, in the location map, the section corners and provide the north arrow and the scale (D.S. 2-052.1.D.3). 4. Revise General Note #17 to match the note as stated in D.S. 2-05.2.2.C.1.b). 5. Show, on the plan, the basis of bearing between two establishes point and the tie between one of the parcel corners to the basis of bearing (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A). 6. Use a thicker line for the boundary to make it more visible (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A). 7. Show all existing easements with all related recordation information concerning location, width, and purpose. 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 (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B). 8. 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 (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C). 9. Indicate the 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). 10. Provide existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F). 11. Show floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations as described in (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I). 12. 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 (D.S. 2-05.2.4.A). 13. The proposed sidewalks on First and Grant shall be 6' wide. Specify this information on the plan or the notes (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.1). 14. 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. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.E). 15. 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. The alley proposed to be abandoned might need to be dedicated as an access easement (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G). 16. In conjunction with a drainage report or statement, as applicable, prepared in accordance with the City Engineer's instructions and procedures, the following information will be indicated on the development plan. For additional information regarding drainage standards, see the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H): 1. Show areas of detention/retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. 2. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. 3. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage crossings and pipe culverts. 4. Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot to provide reference to future grading and site drainage. Proposed building finished floor elevations shall be determined in the drainage report/statement as required by the drainage manual in Section 2.1 of Chapter II. 5. Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) 6. The 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more will be drawn on the development plan. 7. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. 17. Show 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 (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I). 18. Show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled (D.S. 2-05.2.4.L). 19. It appears that the proposed trash enclosure is not standard. Provide a standard trash enclosure and reference the standard detail or provide a detailed drawing of the enclosure (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T). 20. Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U). 21. Construction Note #8 states that the drive thru will be 11'. The plan shows the drive thru 10' wide. Clarify the inconsistency and revise as needed. 22. Revise the Development Plan in accordance with the drainage report revisions. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 10/25/2011 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D11-0036 Walgreens Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 10/25/2011 DUE DATE: 10/27/2011 COMMENTS: 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 10/11/2012. 2. DS 2-05.2.1.D The location map provided is required to contain the following information: a. be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile. b. provide the township, range and section c. indicate the section corners d. provide the scale at which the map is drawn The note indicating the site proposed rezoning as C-2 is incorrect. Revise. There is also a note near the middle of sheet DP-1 indicating the proposed zoning is C-15 Commercial. Revise to the correct zoning of C-1. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been assigned case number D11-0036. Place this case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 In general note number 6, the proposed use indicated as Retail Trade and Food is incorrect. Revise as follows: Food Service "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.A and .C 5. DS 2-05.2.2.B.6 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. Provide on the plans all conditions of rezoning as well as providing a letter indicating how all the conditions have been met. 6. DS 2-05.2.3.B If applicable, indicate the location of existing or proposed easements along with recording information, width and purpose. 7. DS 2-05.2.3.C Per the aerial photos it appear that the property adjacent to the south east portion of this project is using the abandoned alley as access to their property. Clearly indicate how this access is to be provided (easement, gates, etc.) 8. DS 2-05.2.4.A Remove the under lying property lines from the plan. This site contains several separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.B The indicated zoning of the project on the plans should reflect what the zoning will be after the rezoning. Remove the NR-1 and NR-2. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.D Clearly indicate the location of all curbing along sidewalks, PAALs, access lanes, islands and parking spaces. Clearly indicate whether the vehicle use area west of the proposed canopy is a bypass lane or whether drop off and pickup use will be provided. Per LUC Sec. 2.5.3.2.A only one drive through lane is allowed. A Board of Adjustment Variance may be required. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.6.6.B.1.b Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least one (1) foot from: A structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. This would apply along the west side of the canopy as well. Provide dimensions. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.E Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. 12. DS 2-05.2.4.I On sheet DP-1 in the Building Setback portion the required setback from Hampton Street is 21' or the height of the wall of the structure. Revise. The maximum allowed building height per development designator 28 is 30' not the 20' as indicated. Revise. The setback from the NR-1 and NR-2 is 11/2 times the height of the wall of the structure. Per the letter provided it appears the height of the wall along the east side of the Walgreens building will be 24' therefore requiring a setback of 36'. Revise notes. It appears that a Design Development Option Variance will be required for the building setback along the east side of the Walgreens building. This can be incorporated into a Board of Adjustment Variance. Clearly indicate the wall heights for the Walgreens building. Provide the wall height and setback dimensions for the drive through canopy. Along the west side of the Walgreens building provide a dimension to the east property line at the closest point. As shown with a 24' PAAL and a 4' sidewalk does not equal the 31' setback dimension. Clarify with dimensions. Provide dimensions for the building setbacks from the back of future curb and remove the building setback dashed line from the plans. Provide dimensions from the property line to the back of future curb as well. 13. DS 2-05.2.4.N Provide dimensions for the patio area at building Pad A 14. DS 2-05.2.4.P Please provide a detail of both a standards parking space and a handicap parking space. Per LUC Sec.3.3.6.8 Wheel stop curbing will be required at all parking spaces where overhanging of the vehicle may damage walls, buildings, landscape, or impede pedestrian circulation. Clearly indicate location of all wheel stops on the plan. (handicap parking space at the front of the Walgreens building, landscape wall along the south property line, etc.) 15. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Please see LUC Sec. 3.3.9 for bicycle parking criteria. Please provide a dimensioned detail for long term and short term bicycle parking spaces and type of rack or enclosure. Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed long term and short term bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. Short term bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Clearly indicate the location of the main entrance to each building. 16. DS 2-05.2.4.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. 17. The alley access at the south east corner of the property is not an acceptable access per LUC Sec. 3.2.8.2. A Board of Adjustment Variance may be required. 18. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on changes to the plan and other reviewers comments. Variance comments could not be generated at this time. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D11-0036dp.doc |
| 10/26/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 26, 2011 Katie Rounds Evergreen Devco Inc. 2390 E. Camelback Rd. #410 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Subject: D11-0036 WALGREENS Development Plan Dear Katie: Your submittal of October 11, 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 22 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 22 Copies Development Plan (Full Submittal) 6 Copies Landscape/NPPO Plan (Full Submittal) 8 Copies Rezoning Documents (Full Submittal) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) *** In addition, you will have extra fees for Pima County Addressing and Wastewater Reviews. Should you have any questions, please call me at (520) 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: (602) 808-9100 |