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: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0026
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/27/2002 | FRODRIG2 | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 08/29/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED. |
| 09/05/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | COMMENTS ON FILE |
| 09/12/2002 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D02-0026 Greg Carlson Lot 20A&20B E.Side Research Ctr |
| 09/17/2002 | CDRC Review Process | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Craig and Ferne, Here's the transportation information for case #D02-0026 Case Number: D02-0026 Project Name: East Side Research Center Estimated Traffic Generation: 76 trips If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me. Sandy White Research & Statistical Analyst Pima Association of Governments ph: 520-792-1093 x108 fax: 520-792-9151 swhite@pagnet.org |
| 09/18/2002 | PAUL MACHADO | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | To: Greg Carlson, P.E. SUBJECT: Lots 20A & 20B, Eastside Research Commerce D02-0026 T14S, R15E, Section 21 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP & DR The Development Plan (DP) & Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development plan review purposed only. 2. Complete Appendix E in the DR. 3. Please include a pre-existing/pre-development condition map. 4. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks, please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S 3-01.4.4, this may be achieved by the use of PC/COT std. dtl. scuppers. 5. Was there a master drainage report submitted for the entire Eastside Research/Commerce Center? If so, is a copy available? 6. List the project address on the cover of the Drainage Report for record keeping. Development Plan: 1. Please show two cross-sections perpendicular to each other through the retention basins and dimension as much as possible. This clarifies the plans and aids in construction. 2. Complete the docket(s) and page(s) of the water line, temp. slope easement and submit with a copy of the recorded document(s). 3. A private improvement agreement may be necessary for work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Transportation at 520-791-5100. 4. Show the development plan number D02-0026 on each sheet per D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 5. Show the future or existing Site Visibility Triangles on Research Loop per D.S. 2-05.2.4.M. and 3-01.5.1.B.2. 6. Add to the general notes: "Maximize storm water harvesting by depressing all landscaped areas 6" maximum" 7. Show estimated cut and fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 8. There is a possible conflict with the new 6" sewer cleanout (keynote no. 9). 9. Please indicate where the sections on sheet 2 are taken from on the plan. 10. Keynote no. 4 adjacent to retention basin b on the plans is missing arrows. 11. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks, please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4, this may be achieved by the use of PC/COT std. dtl. scuppers. 12. Add basin responsibility note to general notes. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul Machado Senior Engineering Associate |
| 09/18/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. Revise the plans as indicated below and as requested by other agencies. 1) Revise general note 20 on sheet 1 of the landscape plan in compliance with DS 2-06..5.2.c which requires a 2' minimum layer of decomposed granite. 2) Revise the plans in compliance with DS 10-01.0 (Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual). Decomposed granite is not recommended for basin bottoms. pg.95 3) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include only the currently proposed phase. Each phase is required to meet code requirements independently. Revise the calculations and other plan elements as necessary meet the minimum preservation requirements and to provide information consistent with the proposed development plan. LUC 3.8.6.2 4) Revise the landscape plan and native plant preservation plan to include the legal description and revise the site area calculation to match the development plan. 5) Revise the notes regarding monitoring to name the Development Services Landscape Section as the recipient of copies of the report. (sht. 3 note 6) 6) A 5' high masonry wall is required to screen the site from the adjacent MH-1 zoned property. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 7) A 30" high screen is required to screen the site from Research Loop. LUC Table 3.7.2-I, LUC 3.7.3. Revise the plans as necessary to provide the required screening. Resubmittal of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and the Native Plant Preservation plan is required. |
| 09/18/2002 | CDRC Review Process | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D02-026 Lot 20A and 20B Eastside Research/Commerce Center 8060 E. Research Court Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: September 18, 2002 DUE DATE: September 17, 2002 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 August 26, 2003. 2. Place the development plan number (D02-026) and annexation case number (C9-85-95) on each sheet of development plan and landscape plan, in the lower right hand corner near the title block. List the annexation conditions as a general note. DS 2-05.2.1.K DS 2-05.2.2.B.7 3. Approved lot split documents must be obtained/provided prior to approval of the development plan. Place the new legal descriptions and newly issued property addresses on the development plan. 4. Provide a minimum ½ inch margin along each side of all sheets. DS 2-05.2.1.A 5. Please add the proposed floor area ration (F.A.R.) calculation for each lot individually to show that they will meet code as separate entities. The proposed combined F.A.R. for both lots was done incorrectly and would be calculated as follows: 20,000 square-foot gross floor area ¸ 105,383.73 square-foot total site area = 0.19 F.A.R. Please revise. 6. Provide recordation information for the easements. All proposed easements must be recorded and recordation information added to the plan prior to approval. DS 2-05.2.3.B DS 2-05.2.4. 7. Between any building and PAAL a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge with a four (4) foot sidewalk is required. There is no pedestrian sidewalk/refuge area along the east sides of the buildings, and along a portion of the north side of building #2. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 DS 2-08.4.1.B 8. The PAAL along the east property line is shown to be only 20 feet in width, less than the 24-foot minimum width required for two-way traffic. It must be striped and signed as "one-way". Because of the orientation of the proposed dumpster, it must be one-way to the south. Add the one-way arrows on the plan drawing. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 9. Will there be a wall, screen or other obstruction along the east property line? If so, a minimum of two feet is required between the PAAL and the obstruction along the property line. DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 10. If any new freestanding lighting is proposed as part of this development, indicate location and type. DS 2-05.2.4.U 11. If any new freestanding signs are proposed as part of this development, indicate location and type. DS 2-05.2.4.W 12. The handicapped parking signs may not be located in the areas between the wheelstops and the front of the parking spaces. This area must be kept clear in order to allow vehicles to overhang the wheelstops up to the edge of the sidewalk. Also, revise the handicapped sign to read "$500 fine". ANS/ IBC G 13. Revise handicapped parking calculations by removing the statement that 1 h/c space is required for each 50 regular spaces. The correct calculation for required h/c parking is 1 h/c accessible space per each 25 standard spaces provided, up to 100 standard spaces, 1 per 50 thereafter up to 200 standard spaces, 1 per 100 thereafter, with van accessible spaces required at one for every eight or fraction of eight accessible parking spaces provided. ANS/ IBC 14. Provide the dimensions of the building. DS 2-05.2.4.N 15. Dimension the distance between building #1 and the south property line to demonstrate that the proposed building location meets perimeter yard building setbacks required by LUC 3.2.6.4. Also, dimension the distance between both buildings and the outside edge of nearest adjacent travel lane to demonstrate that the proposal meets street building setbacks required by LUC 3.2.6.5. Label as to its purpose the dashed line, which runs parallel to and twenty-six feet inside the property line along the street perimeter yards. DS 2-05.2.4.I LUC 3.2.6.4 LUC 3.2.6.5 16. Revise/reverse the width and depth measurements of the parking spaces noted in keynotes 6 and 7. LUC 3.3.7.2 DS 2-05.2.4.P 17. Because there is cross-access being provided between the two proposed lots, a cross-access agreement must be recorded prior to approval of the d.p. Please provide a copy of recorded cross-access agreement to the Zoning Review Section and add a note to the plan with the recordation information for the cross-access agreement. DS 3-05.2.2.D 18. Revise the scale located beneath the north arrow on sheet 2 of 3 to read "1 inch = 20 feet". DS 2-05.2.1.B 19. Add existing SVT's for the intersection of Research Court and Research Loop, and at the three ingress-egress points. DS 2-05.2.4.R 20. For uses providing no more than 50 vehicle spaces, class 2 bicycle parking may be substituted for class 1. The proposed use requires 90 percent class 1 and 10 percent class 2 bicycle parking, so at least one class 2 bicycle rack must be provided. Revise calcs and show class 2 bicycle parking on a detail, fully dimensioned per DS 2-09. If class 1 bicycle parking is also still being provided, also add a fully dimensioned detail of the class 1 lockers to be located within the building. DS 2-09 DS 2-05.2.4.Q LUC 3.3.7.8 21. There are two cross-section diagrams (A-A and B-B) shown on sheet 3 of 3. It is not clear what areas on the plan drawing these cross-sections represent. Please add lines to the drawing on sheet 2 of 3 to clarify the location of these cross-section diagrams. 22. All requested changes must be made to the development plan and landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/19/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 09/19/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D02-0026 Lot A & 20B E. Side Research 09/18/02 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment ( ) Other – Landscape Plan CROSS REFERENCE: C9-85-95 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 17, 2002 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: JBeall DATE: 9-16-02 |
| 09/24/2002 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 September 17, 2002 TO: Greg Carlson, Greg Carlson Engineering L.L.C. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SUBJECT: Lot 20 (20A & 20B) of Eastside Research Commerce Center Development Plan D02-026 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection rates. 3. Add the Development Plan case number, D02-026, to each sheet. In addition, add C9-85-95 and Co12-83-34 as reference numbers. 4. Complete General Note #15. Show the proposed number of Wastewater Fixture Units in the General Notes. Based on that number, a Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared for this project, if required. The signed Sewer Service Agreements should be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Development Plan. 5. Be advised, the Title Block is not correct, it conflicts with the information provided on the top of page one. Contact the C.D.R.C. office for the appropriate review section to assist with the correct name to be labeled in the Title Block. 6. We will require a Revised Development Plan. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact Tim Rowe at 740-6563. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SR/DK/dk Copy: Project |
| 09/24/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | ENGINEERING - TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering recommends DISAPPROVAL of this development plan. Deficiencies noted: 1. Eliminate (2) parking spaces at east of bldg 20B to provide for required 24' PAAL. 2. Update Handicapped parking sign to reflect $500 fine D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 10/04/2002 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | September 25, 2002 From: Glenn Hicks Staff has reviewed and approved revised plans dated 6/24/02. |
| 10/14/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 9/17/02 To: Mr. Greg Carlson/Greg Carlson Engineering, LLC From: Glynda Rothwell Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP has reviewed the plans dated August 2002. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time. There are existing underground electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project, as shown on the enclosed TEP facilities map. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the easement location and recording information must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the development plan showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 884-3879 if you have any questions. |