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 - DP12-0220
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/23/2012 | CAGUILA1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/26/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/10/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0220 - General Rubber 2201 E Ganley Road Development Package - Manufacturing Use / Pave outdoor storage area and reconfigure onsite parking TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 10, 2012 DUE DATE: December 20, 2012 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 November 20, 2013. 2. DS 2-01.3.1 - List the email addresses for the registered professionals and owner(s) as stated in this development standard, see standard below. The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 3. DS 2-01.3.2.B - Include in the brief legal description listed in the title block, the following after the word 'Portion', "OF THE SW QTR OF," A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat. 4. DS 2-01.3.3 - This project has been assigned the Development Package case number DP12-0220. List the project case number next to the title block of all plan sheets. Relevant case numbers (development package document, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 5. DS 2-01.3.7A.6.a - The Board of Adjustment case C10-97-76 Granted the variances requested with the condition that the lots needed to be combined. It is clear that the lots have not been combined so technically the variances are void and compliance with any land use code or development standards must be met. There will be further comments related to this issue based on the response to the lot combo. Additional requirements will be added to the next review which may include landscaping and screening along the street perimeter and adjacent to residential zones, trees within the parking lot, etc. All variances that were requested would be void and current code compliance will be required to be met. 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b - Revise Note 6 under the zoning text block to list the Section 2.8.5. 2.8.5.7 is related to DM, section 2.8.5 covers the overall overlay. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.c. - If a special review and approval process is required due to encroachment into the Riparian area, provide documentation of such review and approval. If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Development Standard 9-06.0., specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.A - As mentioned in comment 5 the lots were to have been combined based on the B of A decision to grant the requested variances. If the site boundary changes (it shouldn't) revise the site perimeter distances and bearings based on the new legal description. The development package site plan cannot be approved by zoning until the lots are combined or new variances are requested and granted for non-compliance with current LUC or DS requirements. Clearly delineate and dimension the outdoor storage area in order to verify that no more than 25% of the site area is proposed for outdoor storage. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.M - This development Package includes a grading plan sheet for review and approval. Once the development package is approved the grading plan is also approved. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.O - under the General Notes text block, specifically the setbacks section, revise the note to state that the setbacks are based on the greatest of 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the structure. Ganley Street is not an MS&R street and therefore the setbacks listed on the plan are incorrect. Revise the notes as required. 11. Additional zoning comments may be forthcoming based on revision to the plan and responses to the zoning comments. 0If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12-0220dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 12/13/2012 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/14/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 3 1. At the exiting angled Van Accessible parking space provide a chain link gate for access to the accessible route and insure a flush condition exists for access or add a ramp as per ICC A117.1, Section 405. 2. The curb ramp shown in the accessible parking aisle is not compliant. Reference ICC A117.1, Section 406 and 405. A new sidewalk ramp as per section 405 might be more appropriate. 3. Provide a large scale detail of the newly striped accessible parking space as per note 7 showing all the accessible requirements such as dimensions, grade slopes, signage, markings, access ramps as required and aisle. SHEET 4 4. Ditto notes 1 and 3. SHEET 5 5. At the accessible parking space detail: a. Remove the curb ramp inside the accessible parking aisle and provide a new concrete ramp in the concrete sidewalk as per ICC A117.1, Section 405. b. Provide a maximum 2% grade at all areas of the accessible parking space and aisle. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/17/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 12/19/2012 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 20, 2012 SUBJECT: General Rubber Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Amy Hammerstrom LOCATION: 2201 E Ganley Road; T15S R14E Sec08 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP12-0220 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Greg Carlson Engineering LLC, 20NOV12) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Greg Carlson Engineering LLC, 19NOV12). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Revise the basin configuration to meet the basin shape requirements of curvilinear shapes. If rectilinear or geometric slopes are used soften the contours with minimum 10-foot radius curves at all basin corners. 2) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1: Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum allowed. 3) It is recommended that the Civil for this project either work with or review the Drainage Report that has been submitted for the property directly to the west, 2085 E Ganley Rd. A Development Plan Package has been submitted with a Drainage Report that is proposing significant changes to the existing regulatory wash. DP12-0206 is proposing a realignment of the existing wash, which this project should at least take into consideration. 4) DS Sec.9-06.2.1: All proposed development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 9-06.2.2 shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. Verify with the Landscaping Section the proposed encroachment as shown on the development plan documents. Landscaping approval of the ERR and proposed mitigation plan is required prior to final approval. 5) DS Sec.9-06.2.5.B: The project proposes encroachment (paved parking/storage area and a detention/retention basin) within the Regulated Areas of the regulatory wash, demonstrate conformance with DS Sec.9-06 and Chapter 29 of the Tucson Code. The Environmental Resource Report must include all items (a-x) within this section. SITE PLAN: 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The relevant Development Plan Package number (DP12-0220) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 7) DS 2-01.3.7A.6.a: Per Zoning comments the issue with the lot combo along with the existing Variance requirements may generate additional comments on the next submittal depending on how the issue is resolved with the Zoning Section. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: A right-of-way use permit application will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way prior to construction. Contact the Permits and Codes Section in the Transportation Department for ROW Permit application and process. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the basin configuration to meet the basin shape requirements of curvilinear shapes. If rectilinear or geometric slopes are used soften the contours with minimum 10-foot radius curves at all basin corners per DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Verify or provide approval through Environmental Services for refuse pickup. Per DS Sec.6-01 onsite refuse collection is required and the development plan package should reflect the location and access to the required refuse container. If Environmental Service is not requiring onsite collection then PDSD Engineering will approve this comment based on their written approval for refuse collection. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 12) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the required basin. b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. Since the project is proposing to contain the entire 100-year discharge verify that the basin will drain in the required time, report should include a safety factor. c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. d) Provide slope stability recommendations for the constructed slopes that are proposed. e) Provide a General Note to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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 re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 12/19/2012 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/20/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/20/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Provide screening per LUC 3.7.2-I for the south and west boundaries. 2) Provide calculations for expansions of vehicular use area. Include the approved VUA as of Feb. 15, 1991 and list subsequent expansions. If the expansion calculation exceeds 25% the landscape plan is required to reflect compliance with LUC 3.7 for the entire site. LUC 3.7.1.2 1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows. a. If the expansion is less than twenty-five (25) percent, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval. b. If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. 3) The ERR summary is acceptable to the Landscape Section and establishes that the project does not impact an actual Protected Riparian Area. DS 9-06.2.5 Please contact the Engineering Section and verify that the submittal is acceptable per DS 9-06. |
| 12/20/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter and backflow preventer b. the location of the septic tank and leach field for building #2. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 12/21/2012 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed. Revisions are required. The resubmittal will require 2 rolled sets of the plans and all other items requested by the review staff. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |