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 - DP12-0181
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/16/2012 | CAGUILA1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/17/2012 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | Review not needed per Plan Review Worksheet |
| 10/17/2012 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | Review not needed Submittal Review Worksheet. |
| 10/18/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/26/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 2 of 17 1. Provide an accessible route to the entrance of the new car display building. a. Insure that the two accessible parking spaces are adjoined to the accessible route. SHEET 17 of 17 2. At detail 5, detectable warning strips are not required at this situation. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/01/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Precision Toyota of Tucson Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0118 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 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. This plan is reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site for all phased due to a building expansion of greater than 25%. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Zoning acknowledges that D.S. 2-01.3.2.D states that an administrative street address is to be provided in the title block. After discussion with Pima County Addressing the administrative street address is to be provided adjacent to the title block. That said provide an administrative address adjacent to the title block. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0181, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All easements shown to be abandoned on this development package will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Clarify what the dashed lines are that run under the proposed storage #3 building. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Clarify what the dashed lines are that run under the proposed service #1 building near the east end. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.A As the proposed site covers three (3) parcels a lot combination will be required prior to approval of the development package. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination with your next submittal. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H 5 Sheet 3 there is a security gate called out under keynote 24 near the southeast corner of the site that provides access to require vehicle parking. Provide a note on the plan that states "THIS GATE TO REMAIN OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS". 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H 5.a Sheet 3, Long-Term bicycle parking located near the southeast corner of service #1, demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.6.4.B.2 are met. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet 2 & 3 Keynote 12 calls out "DECORATIVE CONCRETE DISPLAY PADS", are these pads raised and if so are there over 6" in height. If over 6" in height demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.6.4.B.2 are met is located adjacent to a required vehicle parking space. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4.2 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Sales, 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of gross lot area is required not net lot area. Revise the vehicle calculations to show the Gross Lot Area of 550,697 Sq. Ft. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Based on the vehicle parking calculations provided for all three phases a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. As there appears to be sufficient numbers of vehicle parking spaces available on site to meet the LUC requirements Zoning recommends that the required number and the provided number match. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The loading space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5 Retail Trade Use Group no loading spaces are required. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Sheet 2 the proposed location of the Short-Term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.3.B1, & 3. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Sheet 17 Detail 9 demonstrate on the detail how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.6, .7 & .8 are met. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d For both Long & Short Term bicycle parking demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.A.5 are met. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Sheet 3, Long-Term bicycle parking located near the southeast corner of service #1, demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.A.7 are met. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a bicycle parking calculation for Phase I & II on the plan. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show the required bicycle parking for Phase I & II on the plan. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L Provide the following information for the proposed easements called out under Keynote 34 on Sheets 2 & 3; dimensions and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Also provide the recordation information. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Phase I Show the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route required between all buildings on site, i.e. between building E1 and proposed Service #1. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Phase II Show the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route required between all buildings on site, i.e. between building E2 and proposed New Car Sales #4 22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.T Sheet 2 there is a trash enclosure shown north of the northeast corner of the New Car Sales #4. This enclosure is located within an existing Electrical Easement, either relocate the enclosure or provide written approval from TEP allowing the enclosure within the easement. 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/ DP12-0181 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 11/07/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the site drawing to clearly show the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter and backflow preventer b. the locations of any proposed gas meters Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (MH# 9752-01, 2309.81') is higher than the first floor elevations of the proposed customer service building (2307.4') and the proposed car wash building (2305.5'). Provide backwater valve protection per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. The proposed building sewer running from the south side of the new car sales building connects to a private sanitary manhole. The rim elevation of the private sanitary manhole (2306.96') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation of the new car sales building (2307.4'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. Keynote 19 on sheet 7 of 17 calls out a proposed lift station; where is it located? |
| 11/08/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Clarify the note for what is apparently an abandoned roadway. Provide the recordation of the abandonment. Provide a discussion of how the proposed development doesn't interfere with the retained "drainage rights." On sheet 7 label and explain the parallel dashed lines through the New Car Building. |
| 11/14/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 2) Revise the canopy tree calcs to list the number of parking spaces indicated on the development plan and update the calculation to use the current standard of one tree per every four spaces. LUC 3.7.1.2. 3) Revise the plans to include dimensions for the minimum landscape border widths, including any approved portions of the public right-of-way. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. 4) Revise the plans to includes dimesions and details for tree planters in vehicle use areas. LUC 3.7.2.3 |
| 11/15/2012 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | From TDOT Traffic Engineering RE DP12-0181 Toyota Driveway entry Width City of Tucson Code Chapter 25 Max driveway width in a business district shall be maximum 35 feet., Max at the property line is 30 feet with a 25 foot curb return radius. |
| 11/16/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | From TDOT Traffic Engineering RE DP12-0181 Toyota Driveway entry Width City of Tucson Code Chapter 25 Max driveway width in a business district shall be maximum 35 feet., Max at the property line is 30 feet with a 25 foot curb return radius. |
| 11/19/2012 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#255953 November 14, 2012 Baker and Associates Engineering 3561 E Sunrise Drive, Suite 225 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Baker and Associates: SUBJECT: Precision Toyota of Tucson DP12-0181 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted October 17, 2012. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. TEP has underground and overhead facilities located on this property. Not all TEP facilities have been shown correctly . Only on page 7,8 & 9 show some overhead electric, no poles. Underground facilities are incomplete as well. The provided plans do not indicate where the existing underground feeds are located. I have attached a complete TEP Facility map that shows all of our equipment (not to scale). TEP will require a full set of approved site, electrical/load (with panel schedule), and offsite improvement plans. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Susie McCann, at 917-8741 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: City of Tucson S. McCann, Tucson Electric Power |
| 11/19/2012 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Resubmittal is required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | REJECT SHELF | Completed |