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 - D05-0005
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/16/2005 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/17/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved February 17, 2005. |
| 02/17/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0005 Mysis 02/28/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Williams Addition PAD GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Broadway Blvd (gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: March 17, 2005 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: March 1, 2005 The development plan references rezoning case number C9-01-07, Ordinance Number 9594. This rezoning case is specifically addressing changes for lots 8 & 9 of Development Area “C” and does not affect Lot 4 that this project is being developed on. Please remove all references made to this rezoning case from the development and landscape plan and any associated documents. Please correct development area criteria note 2. Distance between buildings is a distance equal to 60% of the building height, but not less than 20 feet. 60% of 72 feet is 43.2 feet between proposed office and parking structure. Distance between parking structure and existing residences to the west would utilize minimum distance of 20 feet with 34 feet provided. Please revise note and add dimension between parking structure and proposed office building. Please indicate the standard dimension for all parking spaces in parking calcs as 8.5’x18’. Per PAD Sec. IX, each development area shall include an energy conservation plan which will address building orientation, solar analysis, prevailing winds, landscaping, shading effect on adjacent development parcels, building thermal analysis identifying the thermal characteristics of the building enclosure, annual energy consumption in BTU/S.F., and passive /active energy conservation measures proposed for the projects. Please provide. Please provide verification that the development plan has been submitted to the owner, or it’s representative, for review prior to submittal to the City of Tucson as per PAD Sec.XI.C.1. |
| 02/22/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill witn in 1000 feet of this development. * Circulation access to dumpster enclosures OK. * Dumpster enclosures; * Ten foot clear area required between sidewall protection and between front gates and rear wall protection. * The 14' x 40' clear area required infront of the enclosure has a conflict with the design of the two enclosures. (Present design has the clear area for the eastern enclosure in conflict with the western enclosure.) * Question if the two enclosures will provide sufficient refuse collection capabilities for this size building. (Recommend investigation into compactor units for garbage and recycling.) |
| 02/23/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D05-0005 SAYLER-BROWN BOLDUC ARCHITECTS L.L.C. MYSIS |
| 02/28/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: February 25, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D05-0005 Mysis: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services No comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/02/2005 | 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: D05-0005 MYSIS/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/01/05 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: Correct Block 4 Resubdivision to: A Development of Lot 4…(In Title Block). 2.) Ghost in adjacent lots on Sheet 2. |
| 03/10/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 9, 2005 TO: Thomas Sayler-Brown Sayler-Brown Bolduc Architects L.L.C. THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Williams Centre, Lot 4 Development Plan – 1st Submittal D05-0005 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Aviation Corridor to Santa Cruz Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on the evaluation of project C12-85-51, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0005, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. Revise General Note 15 to read as shown below and fill in the blanks appropriately THIS PROJECT HAS ____ PROPOSED AND ____ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). SHEET 1. Revise General Note 19 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS, 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. SHEET 1. Add the following General Notes A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER TO ITS POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. SHEET DP2. Show the length of the proposed private sewer. SHEET DP2. Show the invert elevation of existing public manhole 15. A private Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents has been sent to your office. After three original Sewer Service Agreements have been signed by the Owner of Record, the three originals should be returned to Pima County Wastewater Management in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the development plan. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 03/11/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: MYSIS D05-005 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated February 15, 2005. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of TEP facilities map showing the approximate located of existing facilities. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8745 Cell Phone: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8700 |
| 03/15/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | DATE: March 17, 2005 To: Craig Gross Planning Administrator FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT:MISYS Development Plan D05-0005 (First Review) T14S, R14E, Section 14 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: NONE The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report for MISYS at Williams Center and recommends approval at this time. A complete grading permit submittal and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be required for this project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 03/17/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org D05-0005 Mysis 3/11/2005 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Broadway Blvd (Swan to Craycroft) No 0 54,100 64,140 6 64,140 51,586 6 1,343 Route 8, 10 minutes 0.25 miles Bus/Bike lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 03/17/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. The centerline of intersecting streets will have an angle of intersection of 90º or as close to 90º as is practicable. Local streets will intersect at an angle no less than 60º. (DS 3-01.6.4.A) The one-way exit at the north of the site appears not to meet this requirement. 2. The symbol used for traffic signs is not correct in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvement (SD100). This applies to the new "do not enter" sign (keynote 21) and the sign symbols in detail 4/1. 3. Eliminate the striped crosswalks at the street and driveway crossings. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/17/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. The consultant should note that there are two details on sheet 1/5 that are labeled as detail "3" and there is missing a detail "4." D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/18/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation plan to provide mitigation for the Celtis pallida proposed to be removed. LUC Table 3.8.6-I 2) Revise the native plant preservation plan to correct the designation for P-11. The native plant inventory and the symbols used on the aerial photo are not in agreement. DS 2-15.3.1.A 3) Revise note 16 on sheet LD-1 to include the updated phone number for the inspection request, 791-5640 EXT. 1140. 4) The tree planting areas along the west side of the site do not conform to DS 2-06.3.3.E. Revise as necessary. The trees may not be located within the parking space, except for the 2.5' vehicle overhang. Revise keynote 9 on the development plan as necessary. 5) Revise the canopy tree calculation (note 1) on sheet LD-1. The ratio of trees to spaces is now 1/10. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1 (Ord. No. 10016, §1, 8/2/04) 6) Clarify that the inside dimensions for tree planters are to be a minimum of 4 feet. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 7) The canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise all plans as necessary. Several of the spaces are more than forty feet from canopy trees. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 8) Revise the plans to comply with the provisions of the WILLIAMS ADDITION PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT A) Minimum Usable Open Space: all uses other than residential-minimum of 10 percent of the total lot area. Provide calculations, see the definition of usable open space on page V-4. B) Revise all plans to comply with the landscape provisions from p. V-15 of the PAD. Provide calculations. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped. No landscaped area shall be less than 80 square feet in size. C) The property abuts, or includes, an area identified on Exhibit D of the PAD as a Primary Pedestrian Access. Show any provisions for the pedestrian access, including sidewalks and landscaping. |
| 03/21/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 03/24/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | I just had the chance this afternoon to sit down with the plans you forwarded on this project. I know the cover letter says they are for information only, but I wanted to share with you a concern I have about the lighting on the top (2nd) level of the parking structure. Please see page 5, the Photometric Plan for the site. The low levels of light indicated at the southeast and northeast corners where the pedestrian stair access and transition areas concern me some. I realize that the numbers shown only refer to the light generated by the twelve fixtures under the canopy in the middle. What concerns me is that adequate lighting is provided around the transition area from the top stair landing into the parking area in both corners. Especially the NE corner where there could be parked vehicles adjacent to the entrance/exit (page 3). The design of the pole lights covering the ground level parking to the east of the parking structure and the corresponding light numbers seem to indicate that they will add little if any light to this area. Even though the ground level pole lights are about ten feet higher than the wall surrounding the upper parking, most of their light is directed downward according to the numbers and they appear to be about forty feet from the wall. Parking structures are notorious for crimes against persons so lighting there should be the best on the property. Just my two cents... Thanks, Ofc. Bob Greenwood #28164 Tucson Police Department - Operations Division East Crime Prevention/Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator 9670 E. Golf Links Road Tucson, AZ 85730 Office: (520)791-5735 ext. 141 Fax: (520)791-5744 |
| 03/24/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/24/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 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 February 16, 2006. 2. List the name, address, and telephone number of the developer of the project. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1) 3. Under general note one (1), list the existing zoning as PAD-1. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.1) 4. Existing zoning classifications (PAD-1) adjacent to the project shall be indicated on the drawing. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.B) 5. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5, the number of bicycle parking spaces required is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Revise bicycle parking calculation as required and indicate in the keynote the number of spaces provided at said location. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. |