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 - DP14-0089
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/30/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/30/2014 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 05/30/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/02/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports the Development Plan’s acceptance. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 06/04/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chapman Automotive East Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0089 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 4, 2014 DUE DATE: June 27, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is May 27, 2015 SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0089, adjacent to the title block on all each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on all each sheet. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 3. COMMENT: As this project will be approved as Vehicle Rental and Sales and will only receive a single C of O for this use remove the reference to "AUTOMOTIVE MAJOR SERVICE AND REPAIR" from General Note 1. 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 4. COMMENT: Subdivision S13-009 will need to be approved prior to approval of this development package. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. 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. 5. COMMENT: The existing "1' ACCESS CONTROL ESMT. PER BOOK 52 OF MAPS & PLATS, PAGE 25, P.C.R." will need to be abandoned and the new access control easement recorded prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 6. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the entrance access lanes off of 22nd Street and Belvedere Avenue on the plan. 7. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.b The spur must be a minimum of three feet in depth and have a three foot radii and a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. That said provide a fully dimensioned back-up spurs for the two (2) back-up spurs shown near the northwest corner of this site. 8. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.c A minimum distance of three (feet must be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches in height. That said show the three (3) foot distance from the back-up spurs to the proposed wall for the two (2) back-up spurs shown near the northwest corner of this site. 9. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said there appears to be some type of drainage structure at the northwest corner of the site, provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from access this area. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 10. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said along the west property line there are twelve (12) vehicle parking spaces and seven (7) vehicle display spaces where it appears that vehicles will be able to overhang the property line. Provide some type of barrier. 11. COMMENT: There appears to be a proposed rolling gate located just west of the Service Drive-Through and a double swing gate shown at the southeast corner of the Car wash. As these gates provide access to required vehicle parking, provide a note on the plan stating "THESE GATES TO REMAIN OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS". 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 12. COMMENT: The loading space calculation is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Retail Trade Use Group, zero (0) loading spaces are required for Vehicle Rental and Sales. Revise the calculation. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 13. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Rental and Sales, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Per UDC Section 11.4.8 DEFINITIONS - G, Gross Floor Area, The sum of the horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings, including accessory buildings on a lot, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings and includes elevator shafts and the stairwells at each story. Gross floor area includes floor space with structural headroom of six feet and six inches or more used for mechanical equipment; penthouses; attic space; interior balconies; mezzanines; and service bays but does not include any interior space used for parking, loading, or loading space that is incidental to the principal use. That said the long term bicycle parking requirement does not break out different areas like the vehicle parking requirement. Revise the calculation to include the gross floor area for the entire site. 14. COMMENT: The proposed location for the short term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.C.2.a & .c. 15. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet. Detail B, sheet 2 only shows about a one and one half foot wide space. This two (2) foot wide space is measured from the side of the rack, not center of rack as shown on the detail, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. 16. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. Clearly show the required two and one half feet from the side of rack to the obstruction on detail B sheet 2, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. 17. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e Outdoor bicycle parking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent side walks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use. Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of this UDC Article are met on the plan or details. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 18. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information for the proposed "1' ACCESS CONTROL EASEMENT" on the plan. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 19. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all proposed side walks on the plan. 20. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a four (4) foot side walk is required along the west side of the Service building. 21. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a four (4) foot side walk is required along the east side of the building just north of the loading space. 22. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a four (4) foot side walk is required along the south side of the building. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 23. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed detail 5, sheet 5 meets the requirements of Rezoning condition 5. 24. COMMENT: It does not appear that the entrance off of Belvedere Avenue meets the requirements of Rezoning condition 1.e. 2-06.4.9.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. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 25. COMMENT: If applicable show the location and type of all proposed signs on the plan. 2-06.5.3 Additional Information The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable: 26. COMMENT: Cleary identify all proposed improvements, i.e. gates, walls enclosures, signs, etc. on the plan. 27. COMMENT: There are three (3) lights shown along the west property line that appear to be on the adjacent property. If these lights are for this project and located on the adjacent property some type of recorded easement or agreement is needed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package . |
| 06/04/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | see comments in SIRE |
| 06/06/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please indicate locatio of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants. Indicate intentions regarding fire sprinklers. Include on drawings proposed fire department access. Verify fire department access meets requirements of Section 503 of the 2012 International Fire Code. Include dimensions. Review any proposed gates for compliance with Section 503.6. Provide details proving compliance. |
| 06/11/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#278303 June 11, 2014 Baker and Assoc. Engineering Attn: Michael Baker 3561 E. Sunrise Dr. Suite 225 Tucson, AZ 85718 Dear Mr. Baker: SUBJECT: Chapman Honda DP14-0089 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and has approved the development plan submitted June 4, 2014. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will not 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 (OH204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Necas at (520) 918-8295. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J. Necas, Tucson Electric Power |
| 06/17/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP14-0089 CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE EAST/DEVELOPMENT PLAN /1ST REVIEW DATE: JUNE 12, 2014 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. Label project# DP14-0089 on all Sheets 2. Correct Title Block on all Sheets to: Chapman Automotive East being a resubdivision of 22nd Street Commerce Center Lots 1-13 and Common Area A & B recorded in Book 52 of Maps and Plats at Page 25, located in a portion of Section 22 . . . . . NOTE: records do not show a recorded subdivision plat for: Chapman Automotive East Block 1 |
| 06/17/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. |
| 06/18/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 06/19/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 1 1. Renumber the notes. They are out of sequence. SHEET 2 2. Provide an accessible route on the east side of the Service Drive Through to connect the north side to the south side. 3. Continue an accessible route from the north/east corner of Building 1 to the east side of the detail area. 4. Typical accessible parking details are not accurate, not as designed and not acceptable. Please provide a large scale detail for each type of accessible parking layout showing all accessible requirements including dimensions, grade slopes, markings, signage, aisles, accessible routes and access to the accessible route such as curb and/or sidewalk ramps. 5. Delete all references to ADA. Reference the 2012 IBC, Chaptre 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1. 6. Insure the the slopes of all accessible routes comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. END OF REVIEW |
| 06/23/2014 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Michael Baker, P.E., Larry Roberts, P.E. SUBJECT: DP14-0089 Chapman Automotive East Development Package (SP) 1st submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 4426 E 22ND ST, 85711, Ward 5 REZONING: C9-96-1 LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 22 PROPERTY: 130-14-439B, 22nd Street Commerce Center FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-shaded, 100-yr, 2284L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed and provides comments to the Development Package including and Drainage Report. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. Prior to resubmittal, address the following comments based on Tucson Code Chapter 26, Unified Development Code, Technical Manual, and Administrative Manual. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C: Address the following Development Package general note comments: i) On sheet 1, add a general note that walls shall require separate review and permits. ii) As a note, add verbiage for drainage maintenance per drainage manual: Tech Man Sec.4-04.14.3.2. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Show erosion hazard or geotechnical setbacks on planviews. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 3) Tech Man Sec.8-01.5.2.D: Provide refuse enclosure detail, showing sufficient interior dimensions between bollards, add note that gates shall be opaque (no see-through gates allowed), show minimum 2%slope on concrete pad, show that enclosure is not located in a flowline, and clarify gated area to the east of solid waste pick up area. 4) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: On sheet 2, label MS&R 'Arterial' for 22nd Street. 5) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Clarify proposed/existing sidewalk and curb along adjacent public streets and explain compliance of any remaining rezoning condition right-of-way improvements. 6) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: For detail 1 on sheet 4, assure pavement structural design matches geotechnical recommendations. 7) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.N: Clarify with details where the outflow occurs per drainage report section IV.4.3. 8) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8: Assure all property pins that are existing or that have been set are labeled on planviews. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 9) Tech Man Sections: 4-04.7.6.1, 4-04.2.2, Tuc Code 26-5.2(9) Address the following drainage report comments: a) In section I.B, please clarify that this report is for the site plan portion review only for this Development Package. b) Drainage report proposes an erosion hazard setback based on equation 7.8b however the City gets a different ratio of radius of curvature to Top width, that is closer to a value of 3.5; therefore equation 7.8c should be used. Please revisit the erosion hazard setback calculation and provide clarified calculations and explanation of parameters used for the proposed equation. c) Include discussion in Drainage Report regarding TDOT approved design of bank protection required per Rezoning condition 2 (see additional comments in this comment letter). d) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.3.4: Provide velocity discussion in report or identify velocity of existing channel on drainage report exhibit. e) Tech Man Sec.4-03.2.2: City considers waivers for retention where subsurface constraints exist. In lieu detention is sometimes required in lieu of retention for a waiver - if it is within a region that has drainage issues and detention may help. Usually the retention waivers are granted when landscaping borders are proposed for rain water harvesting. Please provide additional discussion, in section V.C, of how landscape border waterharvesting will be provided quantitatively. f) Tech Man Sec.4-04.1.5.2: Provide a maintenance checklist, or discussion in the Drainage Report section V.E, of how maintenance should be provided for the proposed specific drainage-related improvements for project. g) UDC Sec.10.3.3, Admin Man Sec.5: Address the following Rezoning comments: i) The rezoning conditions require that the Public Drainageway's outside curves have erosion protection based on approved design by TDOT. TDOT was contacted and stated that: 1. The Developer must obtain a Floodplain Use Permit from PDSD for the proposed improvements; and 2. A copy of the approved DP, Drainage Report, and Floodplain Use Permit, and PIA plans will need to be submitted to TDOT for review, approval and PIA inspection. ii) Within response letter, provide comprehensive response letter that explains how the proposed project demonstrates compliance for each of the engineering-related rezoning conditions. h) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.1.10: Assure minimum FFE for buildings are above adjacent FEMA SFHA RFE. Address the following: i) Proposed FFE for proposed building is lower than adjacent FEMA BFE's and needs to be revised. It is imperative that the proposed FFE meets regulatory minimum finished floor requirements. ii) Also, note that adjacent fill not meeting the minimum requirements (at or above BFE) will subject the building owner to FEMA SFHA flood insurance requirements as applicable. i) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.3: Clarify Q100 entering and leaving site at concentration points for Proposed Drainage Plan and Onsite Watershed Map. It may be necessary to further discuss no adverse impact to downstream ROW and properties. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 10) No comments. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 11) No comments at this time since this Development Package is not intended for grading permit review. Additional comments pertaining to more specific grading information may be forthcoming in grading permit submittal. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 12) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Assure complete information is provided for easements on the site: a) Show existing easements (dimensioned, with survey info) as shown on approved final plat and or title report. b) Assure no conflicts with easement for proposed structure footprint and provide any sequence numbers with easement information on planview for new easements or those abandoned that were not shown on the approved recorded final plat. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 13) No comments at this time since this Development Package is not intended for grading permit review. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENT: 14) Tech Man Sec.10-01.3.1.A, 4-04.14.6: Revise Geotechnical Investigation Report to assure 30-ft boring evaluation for collapsible soils is included in report with discussion for building setbacks from basins. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, title report, revised Drainage Report, revised geotechnical report, redline set, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. A meeting is required prior to next submittal. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 06/25/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | FromTDOT Zelin Canchola Date: June 26, 2014 DP14-0089 Chapman The plan requires change prior to approval. 1. Provide width dimensions for the entrance access lanes off of 22nd Street, and Belvedere Street. 2. Provide turn around area for gated driveways from 22nd Street. Vehical cannot back out into street. 3. Provide note: Any traffic signs must be plced outside of the Right of Way, and maintained by the developer. 4. Provide note: A Private Improvement Agreement will be required for work within the Right of Way. Contact City of Tucson Utilities and Permits section for further information at 520 791 4259. 5. Provde information or documentation for the intent of fullfilling rezoning conditions B&C. (median break shall be a full access median break with left turns/deceleration lanes for both directions of travel.) The east bound left turn lane into the egress of the Palm Court Hotel has conflicting movements. Is the Hotel prepared for improvements? I can be contacted at 520 837 6659 |
| 06/27/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The presence of manholes in a private sewer collection system will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Submit the design to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (724-7382). A separate plumbing permit from Development Services will be required for construction of the private sewer collection system. 2. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. |
| 06/27/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 06/27/2014 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 06/27/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 06/27/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The DP has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. The clear space for entry into a waste enclosure requires a 14’x40’ clear area in front of each enclosure for each container. The space required for a two container enclosure is therefore 28’ x 40’. See TSM 8-1.5.3.B. Please show this area outlined on the plan. 2. Grading information does not appear to be provided on the plans. Please show grades and slopes to demonstrate compliance with sloping requirements within and away from the enclosure per the figures in TSM Section 8 and as described in TSM 8-01.5.2.G. 3. Per TSM Section 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. 4. Add sufficient notes and details in regards to the enclosure to demonstrate compliance with the construction details, dimensions, slab reinforcement, bollard placement, apron dimensions, gates, etc. as shown in Figure 3A in TSM Section 8. If there are questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net. |
| 06/30/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) A.M. 2-10.4.2.A.2.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. 2) A.M. 2-10.4.2.A.3 Clearly show the "Type of screening material (e.g., masonry wall, wood fence, species of plant material)." for all areas. 3) A.M. 2-10.4.2.A.2.e Indicate the " Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas;" 4) A.M. 2-10.4.2.A.2.e Provide dimesions for the width of the street landscape borders. 5) The landscape buffer adjacent to Belvedere is less than what was indicated on the PDP associated with the rezoning case. C9-06-10 6) Revise the Irrigation Note section. The notes were printed incorrectly. 7) Review the conditions of rezoning and confirm that all are addresse. revise the landscape plans as necessary to comply. C9-96-10. 8) Provide additional grading information details on the Rainwater Harvesting Plan. Indicate spot elevations for the bottoms of water harvesting structures, at spillways, and to define other grades as needed; TSM 4-01.3.2.C.1.3.a.iii Indicate the location of all surface or subsurface infiltration structures, pipelines, spillways, French drains, scuppers, curb cuts and other infrastructure elements needed to convey, store or overflow passively supplied water, or to control erosion. TSM 4-01.3.2.C.1.3.a.iv |
| 06/30/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 06/30/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 06/30/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/30/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 06/30/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 06/30/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 07/01/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the follorwing items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/02/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |