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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0004
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2012 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 01/11/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/12/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/20/2012 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this development and recommends the plan approval. |
| 01/23/2012 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 January 20, 2012 To: ZACH HILGART HILGART / WILSON, LLC 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: AUTOZONE STORE NO. 4098 Development Plan – 1st submittal DP12-0004 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: 1. Sheet 1: 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. Ref. A. 2. Sheet 5: Show the IMS #’s for all of the existing public manholes on plan. Ref. A. 3. Sheet 5: A new manhole is not necessary at the point of connection to the existing public sewer line. A direct connection of the private 4” BCS to the 8” existing public sewer line would be the preferred method of connection. Ref. A and E 4. Sheet 5: Call out the invert at the point of connection. Ref. A. 5. Sheet 5: Call out the proposed BCS as private and show the slope and length of the proposed private BCS. Also call out the rim and invert elevations of the proposed private cleanout. Ref. A. 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 $5.00 (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. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 01/23/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Here are my comments - DATE: 1/20/2012 CASE: DP12-0004 AUTOZONE #4096: DEV PKG COMMENT: No objections or adverse comments Daily PM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation: 0 32 Thanks, -Eric Additional notes: |
| 01/24/2012 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#245317 January 24, 2012 Hilgary Wilson Attn: Zach Hilgary 1661 E Camelback rd, Suite 275 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Dear Mr. Hilgary: SUBJECT: Auto Zone 4096 DP12-0004 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 9, 2011. It appears that there are is a conflict with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Existing overhead facilities run through property and will be in conflict with the new building. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 01/26/2012 | JWILLIA4 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address January 26, 2012 DP12-0004 AutoZone Store No. 4098 Development Plan Comments: Denied, The proposed development plan for the AutoZone Store No.4098, Case No. DP12-0004, dose not the meet the minimum requirements for Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle materials Disposal Standard 6-01. 1. The Development Plan must include recycle containers and must be shown and labeled on the site plan. Containers shown on the Development Plans must be labeled for their intended us being Solid Waste or Recycle materials 2. All enclosures must show the gates installed and mounted on the end of the CMU walls or mounted on separate post as show on Solid Waste Standards. If the condition of the wall enclosure does not allow the gates to be mounted on the end of the wall the width of the enclosures must be increased by and addition one (1’) foot. 3. four additional bollards must be added to the enclosure two (2) on each side of the containers. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/31/2012 | JWILLIA4 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Denied | No comments. |
| 01/31/2012 | JWILLIA4 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Denied | I recommend that the light poles be more than the 5' shown on the blue prints. With the concrete stand that the poles will go on top of, anyone can stand on top of the concrete stand and break out the lights. For the safety of the community and the owner's expense of having to replace them, I recommend that they be at least 6'. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 01/31/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | No comments. |
| 01/31/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | No comments |
| 02/02/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET PG01 1. For both marked crossings: a. Please provide 2' deep detectable warning strips at north and south ends of both marked crossings. b. Make the mark crossing as wide as the pedestrian accessible route on the North end of the most southerly marked crossing. SHEET C1A 2. Detail 6: a. Stop the accessible parking aisle markings at the edge of the sidewalk. This area is a landing. b. Show location of accessible signage in both accessible parking spaces. Please indicate if they are to be pole or building mounted. c. Please indicate a maximum of 2% grade slopes for all areas in all directions of the accessible parking and aisle. 3. Detail 12, the bottom of the main sign is to be 7'-0" a.f.g. as per COT DOT standards. 4. Detail 21: delete the truncated domes on the ramp slopes. They are not required. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/03/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | RIM ELEVATION OF MANHOLES NEED TO BE DOCUMENTED ON FUTURE CONSTRUCTION PLANS |
| 02/06/2012 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP12-0004 AUTOZONE STORE NO. 4098/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 6, 2012 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1. Include title blocks on the bottom right hand corner of all pages. 2. The Vicinity Map must be 3”= 1 Mile. Please correct. 3. On the Vicinity Map delete Orphanage Road. 4. Delete all street directions. 5. Are the parcels going to be combined by the assessor? |
| 02/07/2012 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 02/07/2012, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: AutoZone #4096 DP12-0004, T15S, R13E, SECTION 02 RECEIVED: Development Package on January 11, 2012 1. The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. 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. 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 Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: The drainage report is lacking a lot of information concerning the proposed drainage scheme and facilities and their design calculations. Additionally, a geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted to address slope protection and stabilization and onsite soil type(s) and their infiltration rate(s) in order to determine how to design the required runoff retention basin(s). The following comments are more specific: 1. Revise the FEMA Zone "X" definition. The included definition applies to FEMA Zone "X shaded". 2. It is not clear if the right of way widths, shown on the drainage exhibit, are full widths or half widths. Clarify. 3. Show, on the drainage exhibit, the TSMS runoff amount of 422 cfs, in Irvington Road. 4. Delineate, on the drainage exhibit, the limits of the 100-year runoff (i.e. 422 cfs) with 100-year water surface elevations. Please be advised that any proposed work within the 100-year Irvington runoff floodplain will require a floodplain use permit. 5. Determine, if applicable, what other offsite watersheds impact the subject parcel. Provide an offsite watershed map. 6. Based on the requirements of Comment #5, show, if applicable, the 100-year storm floodplain of all offsite watersheds on the drainage exhibit. 7. Provide the hydraulic data sheets for all offsite and onsite watersheds that impact the subject parcel. 8. Address, in the report, the impact of the existing 100-year floodplain on this project and the impact of the project on the floodplain. Please be advised that the retention basin (s) should not be located within a regulatory floodplain area. Revise the report and the exhibits accordingly. 9. Provide, in the report, the proposed drainage scheme and all proposed drainage facilities and their design calculations (i.e. runoff retention including dimensions, side slopes and 100-year ponding limits, drainage scuppers, curb openings, erosion control pads, swales, P.A.A.L's hydraulic rating, proposed materials, dimensions, etc.). 10. Justify, with numbers, why runoff retention is not feasible for this project. 11. Address, in the report, drainage facilities maintenance requirement and responsibility and specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm. Additionally, provide a drainage facilities maintenance checklist to facilitate the required maintenance. 12. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed. 13. 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. 14. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders. 15. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed 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 inadvertent vehicular access. Address this issue and determine what kind of maintenance access is required for the proposed basins. 16. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater 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 and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades. Cover Sheet: 1. Provide the drawings legend as required by D.S. 2-01.2.9. EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Provide consistent sheet numbers based on the "Index of Drawings" provided on the first sheet. 2. Provide a standard title block in accordance with the requirements of D.S. 2-01.2.4. and D.S. 2-01.3.2. 3. A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp (D.S. 2-01.2.5). 4. The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet (D.S. 2-01.2.7). 5. Provide the DP12-0004 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. According to the parcel information provided on PDSD GIS Maps, the subject project area consists of several lots. It appears that a lot combo is required for this project. 2. Provide the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 3. 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 shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B) and (D.S. 2-01.3.9.L). General/Grading Notes: 1. Since the subject parcel is not impacted by regulatory floodplain, remove General Note #B.3 (i.e. This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations) (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.a). 2. It does not appear that the subject project is proposing new private streets. Only private driveways and P.A.A.L's are proposed. Revise General Note #C3 accordingly. 3. Add the following general grading notes: a. The approved Development Package Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the drainage related basins and scarify their bottoms once the construction activities are completed, in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. BMP's may be installed at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". f. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). g. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. h. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. i. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. j. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. k. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. l. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. m. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. n. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. o. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 4. Provide the drainage structures maintenance responsibility note. Site/Grading Plan: 1. 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. 2-01.3.8.C). Provide all missing information. 2. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F). 3. 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, shall be indicated (D.S. 2-01.3.8.I). 4. Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section (D.S. 20-1.3.9.H.2). 5. Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide the street widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4). 6. Existing wheelchair ramp, at the corner of Irvington/13th and Nevada/13th, shall be retrofitted with truncated domes. Revise the information on the site plan accordingly. Additionally, call out the truncated domes on the new wheelchair ramps. 7. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within the proposed retention basins (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 8. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 9. Provide the proposed building roof drainage (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 10. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage crossings and pipe culverts (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). 11. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.7). 12. All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.O). 13. If the geotechnical report shows that the soils percolation rate is not sufficient, bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. Basin details may be revised accordingly. 14. The trash enclosure does not appear to be easily accessible. Either change the location and or the angle of the enclosure or check with Environmental Services if the proposed layout is acceptable to them. Additionally, either provide a standard detail for the trash enclosure or reference the standard detail number (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T). 15. Call out the truncated domes on all applicable details. 16. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement. 17. Show on the plan the appropriate slope protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. 18. Show the grades within the trash enclosure. 19. Provide all necessary standard and construction details and cross section to facilitate the construction of the proposed improvements. Provide adequate information including dimensions, materials, etc. and reference the standard detail numbers. 20. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 21. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps, if applicable. 2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 1. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses retention basin soils percolation rates. 2. Provide the recommended fill/cut slope treatment. SWPPP: Since the area of the parcel is very close to one acre (i.e. 0.942 acre), the area of the proposed work within the right of way becomes very relevant. If the additional right of way area brings the size of the development to one acre or more, a SWPPP will be required for this project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 02/09/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: AutoZone - 675 W. Irvington Road. Development Package DP12-0004 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 9, 2012 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. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development package. If, at the end of that time, the development package 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 January 10, 2013. 1. Until the rezoning is complete the development package cannot be approved. The following comments are based on Development Package Submittal Requirements: 1. The drawing order is not correct. The detail sheet should follow the grading plan. Remove the ALTA from the development package as this is not a required document. 2. The "BULK AREA REQURIEMENTS" & "PARKING INFORMATION" needs to be removed from sheet C1.0 and placed on the cover sheet along will all required general notes, rezoning conditions and calculations. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.4 A title block shall be provided in the lower right quadrant of each sheet, this includes the cover sheet. 2. D.S. 2-01.7 Provide the contour interval and all sheets. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description in the title block. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Remove the address from the title block and place it adjacent to the title block in the lower right corner of the page. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide the page number and number of pages in the title block. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet; D12-0004, C9-12-02. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.2.4 The project-location map shall cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.2.4.C Label the section corners on the location map. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.3 List the rezoning conditions on sheet 1. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. That said provide the existing use and the proposed use should be listed as "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES "28", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.9.2.C". 11. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Revise "GENERAL NOTE" 5 to read "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE" 12. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a Floor Area Ratio on the plan, see LUC Section 3.2.11 13. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Provide the recordation information for all easements shown on the plan. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B The "10' PUE" shown running through the building will need to be vacated prior to approval of the Development Package. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C The following information will be provided for all 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. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C W. Irvington Road is shown on the City of Tucson's Major Streets and Routes map with a future right-of-way (ROW) width of 120'. 12th Avenue is also shown on the City of Tucson's Major Streets and Routes map. At the intersection of Irvington and 12th intersection widening may be require. See the City of Tucson's Major Streets and Routes Plan and Engineering comments for the intersection widening requirements. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E A lot combination will be required for this project for following parcels; 137-05-1240, 137-05-1230, 137-05-1250 & 137-05-1260. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor's Combination Request Form and a recorded copy of COT's Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with you next submittal. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4 Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space. 22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Detail 6/C1.A HANDICAP PARKING DETAIL, show the wheel stops on the detail as shown on the plan and provided location dimensions per LUC Section 3.3.6.8.C. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a Short & Long Term bicycle parking calculation on the plan. 24. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The existing "RIBBON" bicycle rack is not an acceptable rack. See LUC Section 3.3.9.5A for acceptable bicycle racks. For your information a single inverted "U" rack can support 2 bicycles. 25. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a detail for both Short & Long Term bicycle parking that clearly shows how the following LUC Sections are met; LUC 3.3.9.2., .3 & .4. 26. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The proposed location of the bicycle rack does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.3.B.1. 27. D.S. 2-01.3.9.I Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have 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. If required by the rezoning the dedication must be completed prior to approval of the Development Package. 28. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Provide building setback dimensions to all streets based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and table 3.2.6.I. Building setback requirements cannot be verified until exterior wall heights are provided. 29. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the building height within in the building foot print. 30. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the side walk that runs south to Nevada Street on the plan. 31. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the side walk that runs west from the northwest corner of the proposed building to 13th Avenue on the plan. 32. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the side walk that runs north to Irvington Road on the plan. 33. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R KEYNOTE 16, Sheet C1.0 calls out sidewalk details 19 & 20/C1.A. Zoning could not find details 19 & 20 on Sheet C1.A. 34. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R At the northwest corner of the building the sidewalk narrows and appears to be less the 6'-6" wide, wheel stop curb maybe required if this sidewalk is less than 6'-6" wide. 35. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang at all areas where vehicles will be allowed to overhang sidewalks. 36. D.S. 2-01.3.9.U Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 37. D.S. 2-01.3.9.W add the following statement to Keynote 20 "SIGN UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT". 38. Provide the CDRC stamp on all sheets of the development package. This stamp can be found at the following web site "http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp" 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/ DP12-0003 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package, County Assessor's Combination Request Form and Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: AutoZone - 675 W. Irvington Road. Development Package DP12-0004 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 9, 2012 GRADING 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. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 02/09/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Revise keynote 18 on sheet C1.0. Sod is not proposed on the landscape plans. 3) The minimum width for street landscape borders is ten feet. Revise the plans. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 4) Walls, fences, or other screening must be placed behind the landscape border. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2.b 5) All commercial development and site plans submitted after June 1, 2010, shall include a rainwater harvesting plan. The rainwater harvesting plan shall include a landscape water budget and an implementation plan. 1. The landscape water budget shall calculate the estimated volume of water required yearly for all site landscaping detailed in the development and/or landscape plan. 2. The implementation plan shall show how any combination of capture, conveyance, storage, and distribution will be utilized on-site to harvest rainwater. Implementation plans shall comply with applicable development standards for water harvesting applications. 3. The implementation plan shall also provide for water metering of all on-site landscape water through either: (a) A separate water meter connected to the main water supply; or, (b) An irrigation sub-meter. B. The rainwater harvesting plan shall be submitted concurrently with the site plan and landscape plan. TCC Sec. 6-182. See also DS 10-03. 6) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 7) Revise the Native Plant Preservation to include all of the content required per DS 2-15. 8) Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations where applicable: a. Square footage of the site. b. Square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation. c. Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees. d. Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas. e. Length and width of landscape borders and number of canopy trees per length. f. Square footage of all landscaped borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. See DS 2-07 8) Revise the landscape to include a maintenance schedule per DS 2-072.2.A.4 including: A) Pruning schedules to show that plant material will maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearances or that the material will establish opaque hedge screens B) Replacement criteria, should plant material not survive. C) Replacement or upkeep maintenance schedules for inert ground cover materials. D) Maintenance schedules for exterior hardscape materials. E) Maintenance and replacement schedules for irrigation systems. DS 2-06.5.2.C 9) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and locations proposed for inert ground cover materials or seeded areas. A minimum two-inch layer is required. Clarify where D.G. is proposed. The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, also shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4, LUC 3.7.2.7. 10) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. Show the total PIP, TOS, required mitigation for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B Revise the NPP Plan to identify the salvageable trees as TOS, if applicable. 11) 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. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 12) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for landscaping in the public right-of-way (if approved): All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities within the public right-of-way. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on site.Standard Notes for Planting in ROW 13) Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods. Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. DS 2-07.2.2.C 14) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 15) Revise the plans to comply with any conditions related to the proposed rezoning. |
| 02/09/2012 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No comments. |
| 02/09/2012 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | No comments. |
| 02/09/2012 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP12-0004 Auto Zone _ #4096 _Irvington Rd. () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: 12th Avenue/Valencia Rd Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: January 09, 2012 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER:msp 791-5505 DATE: 02/09/12 Planning and Development Services Department Community Planning Section DP12 0004 - Auto Zone # 4096 - Irvington Road February 9, 2012 Based on the applicant's request, the Auto Zone project is under concurrent review for rezoning case C9-12-02, and development plan DP12-0004. Prior to the approval of proposed development plan, rezoning C9-12-02 approval is required from Mayor and Council and the development plan shall be required to be in full compliance with all C9-12-02 rezoning condition. Staff's comments are subject to final rezoning requirements by Mayor and Council and the applicant shall address all rezoning requirements prior to resubmittal of the development Plan. Staff offers the following comments: 1. Prior to development plan resubmittal, the proposed development plan shall be in full compliance with Mayor and Council approved rezoning C9-12-02 conditions. 2. Prior to development plan approval, add to the general notes all rezoning conditions, verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council. |
| 02/10/2012 | JWILLIA4 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 02/10/2012 | JOHN WILLIAMS | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | Approved Per Robert Sherry. |
| 02/10/2012 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/10/2012 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/15/2012 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | No comments. |
| 02/16/2012 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 16, 2012 Zach Hilgart Hilgart Wilson 1661 E. Camelback Road # 275 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Subject: DP12-0004 AUTOZONE # 4096 Development Package Dear Zach: Your submittal of January 4, 2012 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 12 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 12 Copies Revised Development Package (Wastewater, Env Svcs, Fire, TPD, Zoning HC, Plumbing, Addressing, Engineering, Zoning, Planning, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies PC Lot Combo & COT Covenant Documents (Zoning, PDSD) 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.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via email: zhilgart@hilgartwilson.com |