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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0002
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/20/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 01/20/04. |
| 01/27/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D04-0002 GREG CARLSON ENGINEERING LOTS 21 & 22 EASTSIDE RESEARCH |
| 02/02/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0002 Lots 21&22 Eastside Research 01/30/04 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-85-95, Co12-83-34, D02-0026 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: February 12, 2004 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: () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: January 23, 2004 Section 2, 1.d of annexation ordinance 6503 requires a site-specific traffic access study be done for each individual development if deemed necessary by the City Transportation Department. Please contact the City Transportation Department in regards to this requirement. Section 2, 2 of annexation ordinance 6503 requires submission of a complete drainage report at the time of individual development plan review as determined as necessary by the City of Tucson and Pima County Flood Control District. Please contact the City’s flood plain engineer to determine if this report is required. During annexation a covenant to the effect that there will be no further subdividing or lot splitting without the written approval of the Mayor and Council was required per Section 2, 4 of ordinance 6503. Please contact Development Services to determine the required process needed to accomplish the split. Please identify the location of the wall required by Section 5, 2 of annexation ordinance 6503 which is required along the south of the property. This wall is to be painted in earth tone colors. The I-1 zoning is restricted to conform to the Park Industrial (P-I) zone. This includes conformance to the performance criteria as indicated in the Land Use Code (LUC). This includes activities in connection with and secondary to, a manufacturing use. Loading and unloading areas, dock, and platforms are required to be entirely enclosed within a building or enclosed by a six (6) foot high solid wall or fence within an area on the lot. The loading areas are to be located as far as possible from any surrounding residential uses or zones as reasonably possible. Typically as a rezoning condition this distance would be required to be fifty (50) feet or greater. It appears that the loading spaces are setback a distance greater than fifty (50) feet. Please dimension all loading spaces on the development plan from the south property line and identify the location of the required six (6) foot high enclosures needed for the loading areas. |
| 02/03/2004 | 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 February 9, 2004 TO: Greg Carlson, P.E., Greg Carlson Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Brandon Matheson, E.I.T. Pima County Development Review (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Eastside Commerce/Research Center, Lots 21 and 22 Development Plan - 1st Submittal D04-002 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. This project will be tributary to the Pantano, and North Rillito Interceptors and the Ina Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response in 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 fee rates. 3. 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. 4. All Sheets: Add the Development Plan case number, D04-002, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 5. Show sewer size, length, slope and label as private. 6. Show rim and invert elevation for existing manhole #14. 7. We will require a revised Development Plan. 8. The next submittal of this project will be the second submittal. Please include a $100.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are added to the set of plans, or 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 Brandon Matheson at 740-6315. Brandon Matheson, E.I.T. Pima County Development BM/DF/dk Copy: Project |
| 02/03/2004 | 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: D04-0002 LOTS 21 & 22 EASTSIDE RESEARCH / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 3, 2004 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: If Lot splits have been recorded creating 4 lots, please provide recorded documents. If they have not, delete “lots 21A, 21B, 22A and 22B” 2: Correct Building numbers. Buildings should be labeled Bldg. 1 thru Bldg. 4. 3: Delete reference to Admin Address for Lot 21 and Lot 22 on sheet 1. |
| 02/04/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: EASTSIDE RESEARCH, LOTS 21 & 22 D040002 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans dated January 13, 2004. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the facilities and easement 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) 917-8479 if you have any questions Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 02/09/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No Comment. |
| 02/09/2004 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross Planning Administrator SUBJECT: 8080 E. Research Court Development Plan D04-0002 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 21 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies with re-submittal. 2. Provide all existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use per D.S. 2-02.2.1.6. For your information only, all buildings are numbered as "Bldg. #1" on the DP. 3. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Show pedestrian SVT at the Northern most D/W. 4. 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. Please dimension all points of egress and ingress. 5. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 6. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. See comments 8 and 13. 7. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. Including the Pantano Wash. 8. All easement of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page per D.S. 2-02.2.1.20. Please include a copy of the "Cross Usage Agreement" with the next submittal. See comment 6 and 12. 9. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP. Please revise the note on sheet 4 to read: (a.) That the owner(s) shall be solely responsible for, operation, maintenance and liability for the drainage basin(s); (b.) That the owner(s) shall have an Arizona registered professional engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once a year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by city staff, upon written request; (c.) That city staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) That the owners(s) agree to reimburse the city for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the city find the owner(s) deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. Please revise the note on sheet 4. 10. Please revise all plans to reflect the denial of the DSMR requested (04-03). Sidewalks and scuppers need to be added. 11. Show Development plan number (D04-0002) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 12. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Please include a copy of the "Cross Usage Agreement" with the next submittal. See comments 6 and 8. 13. Due to the commercial vehicles entering the site, curb returns will be required. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. Please eliminate the driveway apron and install curb radii per D.S. 3-01.3.2.C. Vertical curb is required in the R/W. 14. 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. 15. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. 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 will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 16. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan is required. Contact Paul P. Machado at 791-5550 x1193 for additional information. Drainage Report: 1. The DR was reviewed for Development purposes only. The final acceptance will done at the grading level stage. 2. Please show the project address on the cover of the Drainage report. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. Please contact Paul Machado for any examples needed. 4. The impervious cover for the entire site, mentioned on page 3, perhaps seems a little too low, please adjust DR accordingly. 5. Show the 18" RCP discharge invert and basin elevations in all figures and text. 6. Please grade basin to drain. This does not mean out of the basin, but rather to the area of the weir. 7. Percolation testing is required to be included in the drainage report per Storm water DET./RET. manual in II 2.2. 8. The Velocities of the discharge for the 18" pipe warrant grade protection. Please adjust. 9. Please include the WSEL for the Pantano Wash and the recommended FFE for the buildings on site. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 02/12/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: February 12, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D04-0002 Eastside Research: DP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Please indicate with stipling, the extent of area to be dedicated as linear park to the City of Tucson or Pima County. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 02/12/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to match the development plan. It appears that the landscape borders are not the same size or are not in the same exact locations. DS 2-07.2.0 2) An interior landscape border and a masonry screen is required along the south property line. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 3) At least one additional tree is required in the southern parking area to comply with LUC 3.7.2.3. 4) Clarify the location of the property lines on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A 5) A six foot high masonry wall is required to screen the loading areas from the property to the south. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 6) Revise the plans as necessary to comply with LUC 3.7.2.7. Include plant cover or dust control for all portions of the site not developed. Identify the treatment used on the slope in the southern portion of the site and in the area adjacent to the wash. 7) Locate and dimension any easements that affect the site on the plans. DS 2-07.2.2.E 8) Identify the limits of grading on the native plant preservation plan and landscape plans. DS 2-15.3.4.A |
| 02/13/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 02/18/2004 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St.Paul FOR: Patricia Gehlen Planning Technician Principal Planner PROJECT: D04-002 Lots 21 & 22 Eastside Research Research Loop TRANSMITTAL: DUE DATE: 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 January 17, 2005. 2. Please note that Ordinance Number 6503, Section 2, Condition #4 requires the written approval of the Mayor and Council for any "further subdividing or lot splitting." Please clarify the existing configuration and the proposed configuration on the first sheet. At present it appears that there are five lots proposed. Identify the existing lot line between lots 21 and 22 to be moved as part of this reconfiguration and lot splits. DS 2-05.2.4.A 3. Ordinance Number 6503, Section 5, Condition #5 requires that all project developments within the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone conform to the Park Industrial (P-I) Zone. Revise General Note 2 to state: "restricted to P-I criteria" following the I-1 zoning designation. The Development Designator is '33' which is subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.5.1.B,.D,.E,.F and .H. All of the subject to requirements must be listed on the Development Plan, and the Plan must comply with those requirements. In General Note #6, please correct the Development Designator, the subject to identification and provide the requirements on the plan. Also, please remove the reference to LUC Sec. 3.2.3. In addition, please correct the Development Designator in the Perimeter Yard & Building Setback Notes on Sheet 2. (See Comment #19.) LUC Sec .2.7.1.2.A.2 4. It is required that Sheets 2 and 3 be drawn in the appropriate engineering scale and the scale information should be provided with the north arrow on each sheet. The preferred location for the north arrow and the scale is in the upper right corner. In addition, the zoning classifications of the adjacent properties must be provided on Sheet 2. DS 2-05.2.1.B & H 5. On Sheet 3 the Sections of Ordinance Number 6503 is incorrectly identified as 6530. Remove all of the Conditions in Section 2 notes and remove all of the Memorandum Dated September 17, 1987 notes. 6. "All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size." DS 2-05.2.1.C 7. In General Note #9, for the Loading Zones, identify the number of spaces required and the number of spaces provided for each lot/building. Please notice that Proposed Lot 21A is listed as providing a Loading (12' x 55') but this Loading Zone does not appear to allow enough space for maneuverability. Note that Proposed Lot 22B is listed twice. The Loading Zones must be fully dimensioned on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.O LUC Sec. 3.4.5.1 8. Remove the plus or minus symbols from the gross lot area dimensions. 9. The purpose of all easements must be stated on the plan along with the recordation information, location and width. Please identify the purpose on the existing easements and be sure to identify all existing easements. DS 2-05.2.3.B 10. Label the street on Sheet 2. Also identify the adjacent zoning on Sheet 2. DS 2-05.2.4.E 11. All proposed easements must be drawn on the plans and properly dimensioned. The proposed easements must be labeled as to whether the easements are public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G 12. Parking Space Keynote #7 claims to represent eleven (11) spaces where there is only one (1) space at the two locations labeled 7. Please correct the typo. There are 109 spaces declared as provided and there appears to be only 105 parking spaces on the plan. Please rectify this apparent discrepancy. 13. In General Note #6 change "Proposed Bldg. Area Lot" to Proposed Bldg. Square Footage or Proposed Bldg. SF. 14. Revise the development plan to show continuous, safe pedestrian circulation for parking spaces to the customer entrance. DS 2-05.2.4.K DS 2-08 15. Please reduce the verbiage in General Note 7 for accessible parking to: "Handicapped Parking Required" and "Handicapped Parking Provided." 16. The required bicycle parking must be calculated for the entire parking lot, as the lots/buildings are not parked separately. Remove the reference to less than fifty vehicle spaces. The required bicycle parking is ninety percent (90%) Class I. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for the indoor Class I spaces. Also demonstrate the five foot (5') maneuverability area on the Class II detail on Sheet 4. DS 2-05.2.4.Q DS 2-09 17. Provide a copy of the recorded cross access agreement with the docket and page. If there is a cross access agreement with Lots 20A and/or 20B please provide that agreement with the recordation information. If there is no cross access with Lots 20 A and/or B please remove the reference to D02-0026 from the lower right corner of Sheet 1. 18. Revise General Note 19 to include the case number, date of approval, modifications granted and conditions imposed. 19. Revise the perimeter yard and building setbacks notes to a matrix. Also provide the SR Zone setback in the matrix. 20. Remove the Type "A" and Type "B" paving shading and detail information from the plan. Provide this information on the Grading and Paving Plan. 21. We thing that it would be advantageous to set up a meet to go over this development plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St.Paul, (520) 791-5608. |
| 02/18/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this D.P. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |