Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0041
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D02-0041 Office Bldg/Dr. F. Menick 01/04/03 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: January 6, 2003 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 791-4505 DATE: 12-31-02 |
| 01/03/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Craig and Ferne, Here's the transportation information for case #D02-0041. Case Number: D02-0041 Project Name: Office Bldg / Dr. F. Menick Estimated Traffic Generation: 157 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 |
| 01/13/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | 1) A 10-foot wide street landscape border is required along El Dorado Place. LUC Table 3.7.2-I Private streets and public streets are both subject to the requirements. 2) City Engineer approval is required in order to locate code required landscaping in the public right of way. Provide written verification of any approvals granted. LUC 3.7.2.4.B 3) A five-foot high masonry wall is required to screen parking/vehicular use areas from the adjacent O-3 zoned properties. Revise the plans as necessary to provide the required screening. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 4) Screening is also required along El Dorado Place between the parking areas and the street landscape borders. 5) Tree planters within vehicular use areas must meet the minimum size requirements of LUC 3.7.2.3.A.c. (min. 34 sq. ft. & min. four feet wide) 6) Indicate the minimum sizes for proposed plants. DS 2-07.2.2 7a) All plants must be from the ADWR approved plant list, with certain exceptions. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with LUC 3.7.2.2.C. Provide calculations for oasis areas. Oasis plants may not be located within the street landscape border except as proivided in LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3.c. See also DS 2-06.3.2. 7b) The plant list include plants not shown on the plans. Show the location all individual plants and remove unused plants from the list as necessary. 8) An irrigation plan is required. LUC 3.7.4.5, DS 2-07.2.2. Stormwater is required as appropriate within the landscape areas. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 9) An appropriate inorganic dust control material, such as decomposed granite will be required for the area between the property line and the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the street curbs. LUC 3.7.2.4.B 10) Include the current case number and references to related case numbers on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B |
| 01/21/2003 | PAUL MACHADO | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | To: Craig Gross Project Manager SUBJECT: 6455 E. Speedway Blvd. D02-0041 (First Review) T14S, R15E Section 06 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Show and label existing and future sight visibility triangles along Speedway Blvd. per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 2. Show all points of egress and ingress including locations and width of driveways and parking area access lanes (P.A.A.L.) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.11. 3. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 4. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 5. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 6. Any portion of the retention basin cannot be located in the right-of-way. 7. Show Development plan number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 8. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Exit from the dumpster location is not possible. 9. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 10. 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. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers (per COT/SD) will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed will suffice. 11. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". Drainage Report: 1. A $150.00 review fee for the Drainage report is required. 2. Any portion of the retention basin cannot be located in the right of way. 3. Provide the project address on the cover sheet of the report. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul Machado Senior Engineering Associate, |
| 12/09/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 12/10/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 12/10/02. |
| 12/11/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : CITY PLANNING FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : D02-0041 OFFICE BLDG/DR. F. MENICK/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE : December 10, 2002 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: Add suffix to Tanque Verde and Pima on Location Map. 2: Spell out suffix for Speedway on site plan. 3: Correct Bk 38 Pg 69 to Bk 28 Pg 69 (west of this project.) 4: Add recording Book and Page to Legal Description in Title Block and to adjacent lot 2. 5: Number buildings numerically. 6: Add Section, Township, Range and section corners to Location Map. |
| 12/11/2002 | DALE KELCH | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the development plan. 1. Include the sight visibility triangles at the driveway entrance 2. Include 2 pedestrian (city of tucson standard) ramps at the driveway. They are to connect to existing sidewalks on each side. |
| 12/12/2002 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D02-0041 THOMAS P PANNO OFFICE BLDG/DR. F. MENICK |
| 12/12/2002 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D02-0041 Office Bldg/Dr Menick CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and approved. |
| 12/18/2002 | 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 December 17, 2002 TO: Thomas Panno, Thomas Panno Architect THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: New Office Buildings for Dr. Frederick J. Menick Development Plan - 1st Submittal D02-041 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 the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced development plan, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. 3. Add the development plan case number, S02-041, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Show all applicable cross-reference numbers for any rezonings, previous development plans, etc. for this property. 5. Show the proposed number of UPC wastewater fixture units in a General Note. If this number is greater than 144, a Sewer Service Agreement may be required for this project. 6. Is the "new manhole" at the northwest corner actually new? This manhole was show as a new manhole on the El Dorado Triangle Restaurant development plan for this property, that was approved in February, 1992. Advise and/or revise as necessary. 7. Is the sewer line north of the "new manhole" new, or existing? It was shown as a new public sewer line on the El Dorado Triangle Restaurant development plan. 8. The development plan shows the new 6" private sewer lines connecting to an existing 8" sewer line. Has this existing 8" sewer line been field verified? It is not shown on any of PCWWM’s base maps, and wasn’t shown on the on the El Dorado Triangle Restaurant development plan approved in February, 1992. Advise and/or revise as necessary. 9. Is the existing 8" sewer line referenced in Comment 8 a public, or private, sewer line? Use different linetypes, or labels, to clarify which sewers are public and which are private. 10. If the existing 8" sewer line referenced in Comment 8 is a public sewer line, the new 6" private sewer line must connect to it at an existing or new manhole. 11. Show how the existing 8" sewer line referenced in Comment 8 connects to the public sewer system. 12. The 15' sewer easement per Docket 5734, Page 913 was granted to Pima County. Label this easement as a public sewer easement. 13. Show the manhole rim and invert elevations for the following: a) All new manholes. b) Any existing manhole into which you are tying. 14. Show the length and slope of all new 6" and 8" sewer lines. 15. Label the 4" sewer lines with the letters, "HCS". 16. We will require a set of revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon our review of these documents. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 12/20/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#98636 December 20, 2002 Mr. Thomas P. Panno, Architect 3308 Landing Place Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Dear Mr. Panno: SUBJECT: Menick Office Building D02-0041 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Development Plan dated December 9, 2002. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development. Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Nancy DiMaria Distribution Services – DS101 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 884-3879, should you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Rothwell Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgr cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson |
| 12/24/2002 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | Jim Stoyanoff- no objection- 12/24/02 |
| 12/26/2002 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: D02-0041 Offices for Fredrick J. Menick MD Development Plan - First Review TRANSMITTAL: December 19, 2002 DUE DATE: December January 6, 2003 COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 December 9, 2003. 2. A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. 1. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. Label th4e roadway along the west boundary of location map as Sahuara Avenue. Tanque Verde Road if continued would head in a northeast direction for approximately ½ a mile. The line on the location map representing Tanque Verde Rd. indicates the road heading east. Revise as required. 2. Section, township, and range; section corners; must be labeled. DS 2-05.2.1.D. 3. The following case numbers should be listed in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets; Rezoning C9-84-25 and Annexation C9-81-33. DS 2-05.2.1.K 4. List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the primary property owner of the site and developer of the project. DS 2-05.2.2.A 5. This project has been assigned the Development Plan case number D02-0041. Please list the D.P. case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 6. This site is subject to the criteria of the Major Streets and Routes overlay zone. Add a general note that states that this project has been designed to meet the criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 7. Please clarify if this site has been recently split. The development plan indicates a parcel, which by the assessor’s maps is actually two, parcels with separate tax code numbers. If the lot was split, provide copies of the lot split documents that would have been processed through development services for approval. The documents should have some form of approval stamps from the Planning Department. Add the all easements and label the purpose and width. In reviewing the Map and Plat 41-52 of the El Dorado Place II subdivision it appears to me that a few of the easements have been mislabeled and dimensioned incorrectly, i.e. the 13’ telephone easement is labeled as 3’. The locations may also not be correctly identified. Please review the plat and revise the drawing to accurately depict the existing easements over this site. DS 2-05.2.3.A. and .B DS 2-05.2.4.A 8. Dimensions the width of the PAAL areas within the private drive (El Dorado Place) which extends from Speedway Boulevard to the north. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 9. An handicap access ramp must be provided from the sidewalk that provides access from within the Speedway Right-of-way to the crosswalk between the vehicle parking spaces to the sidewalk along the south side of the buildings. The handicap access ramp which is just north of the first driveway off of Speedway must be provided with a minimum of a four feet landing, revise as required. All access ramps must be labeled with the 1:12 slope and a maximum of 1:12 flares where applicable. DS 2-05.2.4.K 10. Clarify which of the total building square footage is correct. Under the general notes, note 10, the total building area used for the parking calculation is 14,300 square feet. The square footage, based on the numbers added to the building footprints the total equals 14,107. List as a note the actual building total square footage proposed. All calculations should be based on the correct building area. For clarification, is this site proposed for both medical outpatient type office and administrative office please revise general note 4 to include the following; Medical Service – Outpatient “29” subject to LUC section 3.5.4.8.B (blood donor centers not allowed) DS 2-05.2.4.M 11. The loading space appears to be in a location that may be difficult to maneuver into. Demonstrate on the plan maneuverability into and out o the loading space. DS 2-05.2.4.O 12. All vehicle-parking spaces must be 18 feet in length. Per the plan the spaces are 18 feet long but appear to overlap onto landscaped areas along the east and south parking areas. Per development standards 3-05.2.3.C.1, a vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The parking spaces that are adjacent to the landscape areas along the east and south side landscape areas must be designed in a manner that will prevent the vehicles from overlapping onto the vegetation within the landscape borders. Revise as required. Under the general notes, note 10, indicate the parking ratio used for the administrative office and medical service outpatient. The parking ratio is one (1) space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for the administrative office use and one (1) space per 175 square feet of gross floor area for the medical outpatient use. (40 spaces are required for the admin. Office use. Revise that calculation.) Revise the handicap parking calculation to state that three (3) spaces are required with one van accessible spaces required. (Four provided one van accessible space included.) DS 2-05.2.4.P LUC section 3.3.4 Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. Bicycle parking is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided for each use. The ratio of bicycle parking spaces is based on the following; For administrative office use the bicycle parking is 8% of the total vehicle parking spaces provided with 75% of the bicycle spaces required must be class one and 25 % must be class two. For the medical outpatient use the ratio is 8% of the total vehicle parking spaces provided with 50% of the bicycle spaces required must be class one and 50% must be class two. For an explanation of class one and class two spaces see development standards 2-09. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 14. The sight visibility triangles along Speedway Boulevard and the private drive must be shown and labeled. DS 2-05.2.4.R 15. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 16. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) including billboards to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and those minimal location requirements can be met. DS 2-05.2.4.W 17. See landscape reviewer comments regarding landscape borders, screening, and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D020041dp.doc |