Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D03-0015
Parcel: 141110310

Address: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D03-0015
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/10/2003 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
04/16/2003 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D03-0015
LANDMARK ENGINEERINGINC.
A THUR Z: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
04/23/2003 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: A Thru Z
D03-0015, T15S, R15E, SECTION 28

RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on April 11, 2003

The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments:

Drainage Report:

1. Explain how offsite runoffs will be permitted to enter the subject project.
2. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report.
3. Table 3 shows developed Q100 for ON4D to be 14 cfs. The drainage exhibit shows the runoff to be 9 cfs. Correct the discrepancy.
4. It appears that ON9D should be changed to ON4D in the second line of the DEPRESSED CURBS paragraph on page 5.
5. The Hydrologic Data Sheet for ON5D shows a Watershed Area of 0.0. Revise.
6. In Appendix D, there are worksheets for DP9, 10'DP and 5'DP, which appear not to be shown on the Exhibit 3. Verify and revise as necessary.
7. Provide a soils report which addresses percolation rates for the proposed retention basins.
8. The drainage exhibit should show clearly the pre development and post development ground elevations.
9. Address the detention/retention basin Security Barriers requirements based the information on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual".
10. The drainage report does not address erosion control requirements for the proposed detention/retention basin inlets and outlets. Provide design calculations as necessary.
11. Show the water harvesting areas and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins.
12. Based on the requirements of Section 1.5.2. and Chapter 14 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona, provide a maintenance access for the proposed retention basin and address in the Drainage Report the basin maintenance responsibility including a maintenance check list.

Development Plan:

1. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2.
2. The provided existing contour lines do not have elevations and most of them are hardly visible, which makes it difficult to check for compliance with D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. and differential grading requirements. Ensure that the proposed pad and finished floor elevation meet the requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
3. All proposed drainage structures (retention basin, channels, etc.) should be within common areas or dedicated drainage easements. Revise.
4. Provide access into proposed detention/retention basins for maintenance (A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. The City Engineer will review alternate means of access on a case-by-case basis (SMDDFM 14.3.3 & 4 and 2.3.1.6.C)). Additionally, provide some kind of barriers to prevent the public from having vehicular access to the basins through their inlets (removable post barricades or Bollard, etc.).
5. Demonstrate how offsite runoffs will be accepted into this project.
6. Label all proposed sidewalks/walkways in accordance with D.S.2-05.2.4.K.
7. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
8. Label all proposed depressed curb and their length.
9. Add a general note that specifies the depth of the required water harvesting basins.
10. Provide cross-sections and details for detention/retention basins 2 and 3.
11. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
12. The curb returns for the western and eastern driveways encroach on the adjacent property frontages, which is not acceptable. Additionally, chapter 25 of the Tucson Code requires a minimum distance between curb cuts and driveways to be 20 feet, which allows this development to locate their driveways 10 feet from the lot line and allows the neighbors the same. Revise as necessary.
13. Verify compliance with D.S. 3-05.2.2.B. concerning required setbacks from P.A.A.Ls.
14. The proposed dumpsters' location does not provide adequate access, especially for the first three on the West Side. Revise.
15. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
2. Show water-harvesting basins.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or lalsham1@ci.tucson.az.us

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan
04/23/2003 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: A Thru Z
D03-0015, T15S, R15E, SECTION 28

RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on April 11, 2003

The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments:

Drainage Report:

1. Explain how offsite runoffs will be permitted to enter the subject project.
2. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report.
3. Table 3 shows developed Q100 for ON4D to be 14 cfs. The drainage exhibit shows the runoff to be 9 cfs. Correct the discrepancy.
4. It appears that ON9D should be changed to ON4D in the second line of the DEPRESSED CURBS paragraph on page 5.
5. The Hydrologic Data Sheet for ON5D shows a Watershed Area of 0.0. Revise.
6. In Appendix D, there are worksheets for DP9, 10'DP and 5'DP, which appear not to be shown on the Exhibit 3. Verify and revise as necessary.
7. Provide a soils report which addresses percolation rates for the proposed retention basins.
8. The drainage exhibit should show clearly the pre development and post development ground elevations.
9. Address the detention/retention basin Security Barriers requirements based the information on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual".
10. The drainage report does not address erosion control requirements for the proposed detention/retention basin inlets and outlets. Provide design calculations as necessary.
11. Show the water harvesting areas and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins.
12. Based on the requirements of Section 1.5.2. and Chapter 14 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona, provide a maintenance access for the proposed retention basin and address in the Drainage Report the basin maintenance responsibility including a maintenance check list.

Development Plan:

1. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2.
2. The provided existing contour lines do not have elevations and most of them are hardly visible, which makes it difficult to check for compliance with D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. and differential grading requirements. Ensure that the proposed pad and finished floor elevation meet the requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
3. All proposed drainage structures (retention basin, channels, etc.) should be within common areas or dedicated drainage easements. Revise.
4. Provide access into proposed detention/retention basins for maintenance (A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. The City Engineer will review alternate means of access on a case-by-case basis (SMDDFM 14.3.3 & 4 and 2.3.1.6.C)). Additionally, provide some kind of barriers to prevent the public from having vehicular access to the basins through their inlets (removable post barricades or Bollard, etc.).
5. Demonstrate how offsite runoffs will be accepted into this project.
6. Label all proposed sidewalks/walkways in accordance with D.S.2-05.2.4.K.
7. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
8. Label all proposed depressed curb and their length.
9. Add a general note that specifies the depth of the required water harvesting basins.
10. Provide cross-sections and details for detention/retention basins 2 and 3.
11. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
12. The curb returns for the western and eastern driveways encroach on the adjacent property frontages, which is not acceptable. Additionally, chapter 25 of the Tucson Code requires a minimum distance between curb cuts and driveways to be 20 feet, which allows this development to locate their driveways 10 feet from the lot line and allows the neighbors the same. Revise as necessary.
13. Verify compliance with D.S. 3-05.2.2.B. concerning required setbacks from P.A.A.Ls.
14. The proposed dumpsters' location does not provide adequate access, especially for the first three on the West Side. Revise.
15. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
2. Show water-harvesting basins.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or lalsham1@ci.tucson.az.us

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan
04/23/2003 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: A Thru Z
D03-0015, T15S, R15E, SECTION 28

RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on April 11, 2003

The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments:

Drainage Report:

1. Explain how offsite runoffs will be permitted to enter the subject project.
2. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report.
3. Table 3 shows developed Q100 for ON4D to be 14 cfs. The drainage exhibit shows the runoff to be 9 cfs. Correct the discrepancy.
4. It appears that ON9D should be changed to ON4D in the second line of the DEPRESSED CURBS paragraph on page 5.
5. The Hydrologic Data Sheet for ON5D shows a Watershed Area of 0.0. Revise.
6. In Appendix D, there are worksheets for DP9, 10'DP and 5'DP, which appear not to be shown on the Exhibit 3. Verify and revise as necessary.
7. Provide a soils report which addresses percolation rates for the proposed retention basins.
8. The drainage exhibit should show clearly the pre development and post development ground elevations.
9. Address the detention/retention basin Security Barriers requirements based the information on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual".
10. The drainage report does not address erosion control requirements for the proposed detention/retention basin inlets and outlets. Provide design calculations as necessary.
11. Show the water harvesting areas and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins.
12. Based on the requirements of Section 1.5.2. and Chapter 14 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona, provide a maintenance access for the proposed retention basin and address in the Drainage Report the basin maintenance responsibility including a maintenance check list.

Development Plan:

1. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2.
2. The provided existing contour lines do not have elevations and most of them are hardly visible, which makes it difficult to check for compliance with D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. and differential grading requirements. Ensure that the proposed pad and finished floor elevation meet the requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
3. All proposed drainage structures (retention basin, channels, etc.) should be within common areas or dedicated drainage easements. Revise.
4. Provide access into proposed detention/retention basins for maintenance (A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. The City Engineer will review alternate means of access on a case-by-case basis (SMDDFM 14.3.3 & 4 and 2.3.1.6.C)). Additionally, provide some kind of barriers to prevent the public from having vehicular access to the basins through their inlets (removable post barricades or Bollard, etc.).
5. Demonstrate how offsite runoffs will be accepted into this project.
6. Label all proposed sidewalks/walkways in accordance with D.S.2-05.2.4.K.
7. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
8. Label all proposed depressed curb and their length.
9. Add a general note that specifies the depth of the required water harvesting basins.
10. Provide cross-sections and details for detention/retention basins 2 and 3.
11. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
12. The curb returns for the western and eastern driveways encroach on the adjacent property frontages, which is not acceptable. Additionally, chapter 25 of the Tucson Code requires a minimum distance between curb cuts and driveways to be 20 feet, which allows this development to locate their driveways 10 feet from the lot line and allows the neighbors the same. Revise as necessary.
13. Verify compliance with D.S. 3-05.2.2.B. concerning required setbacks from P.A.A.Ls.
14. The proposed dumpsters' location does not provide adequate access, especially for the first three on the West Side. Revise.
15. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
2. Show water-harvesting basins.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or lalsham1@ci.tucson.az.us

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan
04/24/2003 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
May 23, 2003

TO: Heath Elder, Landmark Engineering

THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services

FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater)
Pima County Development Review Division

SUBJECT: A Thru Z Consulting and Distributing
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D03-0015

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. Per Pima County Wastewater Management’s Planning Services, 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 records for the Sunbelt Industrial Center, Lots 1-8 subdivision (C12-86-35), this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates.

3. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D03-0015, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers.

No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision.
4. Sheet 1: There is an existing public sewer line on this site. Revise General Note 10 to read:

ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS.

5. The landscaping on this property over the existing public sewer line must conform to Pima County Wastewater Management’s Sanitary Sewer Landscaping Policies. (See attached copy.) Submit a copy of any landscape plan required for this project to this office with the next submittal, and the required certification stamped and signed by a registered architect.

6. Sheet 1: Replace General Note 16 with one that reads:

THE PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBER OF WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS FOR THIS PROJECT IS .

(with the blank appropriately filled in per Table 13.20.040(F)(1) in Pima County Code 13.20.040(F).)

If this proposed total is equal to or greater than 144, a Sewer Service Agreement may be required pursuant to Title 13.20.030. Typically, the Sewer Service Agreement is prepared, and three originals of the Agreement are sent to the Applicant for signature under separate cover, as soon as the proposed total number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents, and all necessary ownership information for the project has been shown.

The three signed and notarized originals of the Sewer Service Agreement must be returned to the Development Review Division, before the Mylars of the development plan can be approved.

7. Sheet 2: Show the field-verified rim and invert elevations of existing Manhole 10 in existing public sewer line G-84-74.

8. Sheet 2: Show the correct recording information for the 20' public sewer easement in which public sewer line G-84-74 is located.

9. Sheet 2: Delete the label for a new manhole in existing public sewer line G-84-74 near the southwest corner of the property. None of the private sewer lines connects to this point.

10. Sheet 2: Show the proposed private sewer lines as depicted in the legend on Sheet 1.

11. Sheet 2: Show all of the proposed manholes using the same type and size of symbol.

12. Sheet 2: Show the length and slope of each of the proposed private sewer lines.

13. Sheet 2: Show the size of each HCS line, if it is not 6".

14. Sheet 2: Show the manhole rim elevations for the manholes in the proposed private sewer lines.

15. Sheet 2: The manholes in the private sewer lines must not be in lowlying areas where they will collect and discharge rainwater runoff into the public sewer system. Show a sufficient number of finished spot grade elevations to demonstrate that rainwater runoff will not collect over the manholes.

16. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.
Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. The new wastewater review fees will apply to two of three sheets of the development plan, and all sheets of any landscaping plan required for this project. Please include a check for the appropriate amount (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter for the wastewater review fees

If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly.

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
04/24/2003 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D03-0015 A THRU Z/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: April 22, 2003



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.) Number buildings numerically on Sheets 1 and 2.
201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D03-0015 A THRU Z/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: April 22, 2003



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.) Number buildings numerically on Sheets 1 and 2.
201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D03-0015 A THRU Z/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: April 22, 2003



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.) Number buildings numerically on Sheets 1 and 2.
05/02/2003 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval for this DP

1. Show SVT's on sheet 2 of 3 for all access points onto Old Vail Road.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us
05/07/2003 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
05/07/2003 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied 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 April 9, 2004.

2. a) Note the proposed manufacturing land use class and wholesale land use class under general note two (2). Refer to the Industrial Use Group under LUC Sec. 2.7.3.2.A and Wholesaling Use Group under LUC Sec. 2.7.3.2.F for land use classes. In addition to the land use class, note the applicable development designator and "subject to" sections.
b) Since the property lies within the Davis-Monthan Airport/Departure Corridor, please refer to LUC Sec. 2.8.5.10.B.4 & .9 for permitted land uses. In addition, demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 2.8.5.10.B.10 & Sec. 2.8.5.10.C. 3 & .6.
c) Since this project is being phased, all calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.
D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3

3. This project has been assigned development plan case number D03-0015. Note the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. Remove the reference to S03-0XX from all sheets.
D.S. 2-05.2.1.K

4. Add the following general note: "This project is designed to meet the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone criteria and Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) criteria."
D.S. 2-05.2.2.B10

5. Add the square footage of the gross site area to general note three (3).
D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11

6. Revise the zoning classification for the adjacent property to the south on sheets 1 of 3 and 2 of 3. The correct zoning classification is RX-1.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.B

7. a) Indicate the location of the striped pedestrian paths where they cross a PAAL. The continuous pedestrian circulation path must connect all buildings on-site with the pedestrian path located in the right-of-way.
b) The pedestrian path for the phase III wholesale building must have a path connecting it with the other buildings on-site and to the path located in the right-of-way. The pedestrian path for the Phase III manufacturing building must be connected with a path leading to all other buildings on-site.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.K/ D.S. 2-08

8. The phase III uses noted on sheet 1 of 3 do not match the uses noted on sheet 2 of 3. Please revise for consistency.

9. Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide, as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.4.5 for requirements.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.O

10. a) Indicate by note the number of van accessible parking spaces required and provided. In addition, provided a fully dimensioned detail for a van accessible parking detail and indicate on the plan the location of the van accessible parking space/s. Based on the 14 disabled parking spaces a total of two (2) van accessible parking spaces are required.
b) Indicate graphically, the direction of the slope for the handicap parking spaces on the detail provided.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.P

11. Per LUC 3.3.4 Industrial Use Group and Wholesaling Use Group, the total number of bicycle parking spaces required based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided (240) is 17 Class I spaces and 2 Class II spaces. Provide the bicycle parking calculation and Class I detail. In addition, indicate the location of the bicycle parking spaces on the plan.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q/ LUC 3.3.4

12. Label and dimension sight visibility triangles.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.R

13. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and/or proposed free-standing signage including billboards and outdoor lighting.
D.S. 2-05.2.4.W

14. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
05/07/2003 JIM STOYANOFF COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No Objection.
05/07/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Detention Basin 1 does not comply with design criteria of DS 10-01.4.3.1. Revise the plans as necessary.
A) The basin must include provision for regular maintenance including landscaping. The basin is required to be landscaped per LUC 3.7.4.3.B and DS 10-01.4.3.2 An access slope of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with the landscape areas to provide easy exit during flooding.
B) Continuous uniform slopes shall not exceed 20% of the basin perimeter.
C) Transitions from slopes to level ground at the top and bottom of basins shall be smooth curves.
D) The following slope/depth ratios are required for multiple use basins:
1. A maximum of 2:1 for protected side slopes and 3:1 for unprotected slopes, where depths are less than three feet.
2. A maximum of 4:1, where depths are equal to or greater than three feet.
A benched configuration is required for basins in excess of six feet deep. Benches within basins shall be proportioned so the bench width is at least three times the height of the slope above it. The minimum width of a bench shall be six feet.
Revise the landscape plan to match the development plan.
2) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise sheet L-1 and L-2 as necessary.
3) Revise the landscape plans to identify all symbols used. DS 2-07.2.0
4) Show the limits of grading on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.B.4
5) Revise the NPPO and Landscape plan as necessary to comply with the proposed phasing indicated on the development plan. Each phase must meet all code requirements independently. Currently the NPPO Plan does not appear to be a phasing plan. DS 2-05.2.4.C
6) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plan aerial photo to improve visibility of the plant inventory numbers. DS 2-15.3.1.A.3
7) A five-foot high masonry wall is required along the southern property line. LUC Table 3.7.2-I
8) Sight visibility triangles along Old Vail Road should remain free of visual obstructions as indicated in the standard. Revise the landscape plan if necessary to relocate any plantings which may exceed the height and location restrictions. DS 2-06.3.8.G
9) Provide information on the screen wall proposed along Old Vail Road. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3
10) All loading and refuse storage areas must be screened in compliance with LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise the plan as necessary.

Resubmittal of all plans is required.
05/08/2003 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Add a General Note to the plan stating:"Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with the Fire Code." (The proposed fire hydrant locations shown on the plan are not acceptable. Additional fire hydrants and water main extension will be required.)
05/08/2003 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: May 07, 2003

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0015 A Thru Z: Development Plan


CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Staff has reviewed the development plans and has no comments.
05/08/2003 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D03-0015 A THUR Z 5/2/03

() Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C12-86-35

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: May 7, 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: 5/2/03
Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comment
A Thru Z, D03-0015


The development plan must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including the Esmond Station Area Plan.

It should be noted that the proposed industrial development is located within the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base approach/departure paddle corridor, which prohibits certain uses within this paddle corridor, i.e. wholesale use group – hazardous material wholesale; industrial use group - hazardous material manufacturing and refining. Other restrictions placed on developments with the approach/departure paddle corridor include limits on floor area ratio (FAR) and number of employees allowed for the site.

1) Applicant needs to check with Development Services as to the actual restrictions applicable to their proposed development.
05/09/2003 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved TEP APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN




3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ  85714

Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ  85702

 

 

Telephone:  520-884-3879

Fax:  520-770-2002

WR#105973                                      May 23, 2003

 

 

Mr. Heath Elder

Landmark Engineering Inc.

300 N. Main Avenue, Suite 104

Tucson, AZ 85701

 

Dear Mr. Elder:

 

                        SUBJECT:     A THRU Z

                                                D03-0015

 

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Development Plan dated April 4, 2003.  It appears that there are no conflicts with electrical facilities 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:

 

                                                Mike Kaiser

                                                Distribution Services - DS-301

                                                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
05/09/2003 CRAIG GROSS OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Case Number: D03-0015
Project Name: A Thru Z
Estimated Traffic Generation: 475 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