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 - DP12-0161
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2012 | CAGUILA1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/20/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/24/2012 | CHRIS POIRIER | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP12-0161 SUBARU DEALERSHIP/DEVELOPMENT PLANS DATE: September 21, 2012 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Note: On the final Development Plan correct the sheet numbers of the overall plan on sheet 1. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 09/24/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Resubmittal is required. |
| 09/25/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Subaru Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0161 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 25, 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. 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 September 17, 2013 The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0161, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. That said provide the required information for the "TITLE PARCEL 2 INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITY EASEMENT PER ALTA 8,899.4 SQ FT" shown near the north property line. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There is a "1' NO-ACCESS EASEMENT" called out along the east property line. As development is proposed with in the easement it must be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There are two (2) "30' OPENING IN NO-ACCESS EASMENT" that do not appear to align with the proposed entrance access lane. If the "1' NO-ACCESS EASEMENT" is to remain it will need to revised so that the opening aligns with the proposed entrance access lane. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B The "10; EASEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION LINES" shown to be released will need to abandoned prior to approval of this development package. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F There is proposed development within the RX-1 zoning along the south side of this parcel. Provide documentation that this lot meets the requirements of LUC Section 1.3.5 or remove the proposed development from the RX-1 zoned area. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 There appears to vehicle use/storage area proposed within the existing right-of-way (ROW). Remove all proposed development from the ROW. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Provide a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension for the PAAL located just south of the southwest side of the proposed building. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a parking space depth dimension for the parking spaces shown south of the southwest side of the proposed building. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Under "ZONING DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA #2 BUILDING AREA" the total GAF shown is 28,263. Under "ZONING DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, BICYCLE, LONG TERM" the GFA is listed as 25,303, clarify what the difference is. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Detail "G" Sheet 9, short term bicycle parking, does not match what is shown on Sheet 5. The proposed rack on Sheet 5 appears to run parallel to the building, show the minimum 2-1/2' from the wall to the side of the rack. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a 4' sidewalk along the southwest side of the proposed building. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide width dimensions for the sidewalks shown along the north and west side of the proposed building. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S 2-08.4.1.A At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. That said provide a sidewalk to N. old Oracle Road. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.W Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 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/ DP12-0161 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 09/26/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning will require a pedestrian way to the N. Old Oracle right of way. This pedestrian way must be an accessible route. Reference Zoning comments. |
| 10/02/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/03/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide recordation for abandoned Old Oracle Road right-of-way. Provide descriptions and delineations of any easements retained in the abandonment. 2. Provide recordation or other identification of easement for use of the right-of-way as shown on the site and grading plans. 3. Provide a note indicating that all work within the linear park will require separate review and approval by Pima County Parks and Natural Resources. 4. Show discharge quantities at locations corresponding to concentration points in the drainage report. Clarify where the drainage structures might not have capacity for the whole discharge. In each case show how the overflow is handled. |
| 10/03/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Street landscape borders shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 2) 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. 3) The plans should be revised to modify the "vehicle storage areas". Per LUC 3.7.2.3-I a higher screen is required for storage areas along streets. Consider labeling these as "display areas". 4) The LUC requires a ratio of canopy trees for motor vehicle parking spaces. Identify the parking spaces on the landscape plan. LUC 3.7.2.3.A. Revise the plans as necessary to clarify that storage or display areas are not parking spaces. 5) Revise the Development Plan to show proposed required walls. LUC Table 3.7.2-I Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations: 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 street landscape borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. DS 2-07 6) 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 7. Trails Notes. List the following notes as appropriate. 1. If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication. 2. If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note, as appropriate: “All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation.” |
| 10/04/2012 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/08/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | 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 October 5, 2012 To: TRI MILLER, P.E. RICK ENGINEERING 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: SUBARU DICHRISTOFANO Development Plan - 1st submittal DP12-0161 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: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/08/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/08/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |