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 - D05-0016
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/24/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/26/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Provide a General Note on the plan stating: "Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code." |
| 06/01/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * The double enclosure can be serviced from the south if there is access across the Lucky Wishbone property to the east. Per Bruce Wilson of Landmark Engineering there is an easement for access across the south portion of the property for this property. * The double enclosure requires a 10 foot clear area between the bollards and the gates and between the side bollards and the second dumpster from each side. * The enclosure requires a 10 foot concrete pad in front for service vehicles. |
| 06/01/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D05-0016 LANDMARK ENGINEERING, INC. HAZEN OFFICE BUILDING |
| 06/09/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 9, 2005 TO: E. Bruce Wilson, P.E., R.L.S. Landmark Engineering, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Hazen Office Building Development Plan – 1st Submittal D05-0016 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 and the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the Pantano 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 G-73-67, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0016, 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 18 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. Add the following General Note MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER TO ITS POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. SHEET 1. Add the following Permitting Note A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. SHEET 1. Add the following General Note 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 2. Show the length, size and slope of the proposed private sewer. SHEET 2. Show the size and Pima County plan number of the existing public sewers, including the existing public sewer that is being abandoned. SHEET 2.Show the rim and invert elevations of any proposed manholes/cleanouts. SHEET 2. The proposed easement shall be “BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT”. Please label it accordingly. SHEET 2. Delete all parking places located within a 12-foot radius of new manhole 2. SHEET 2. The proposed public sewer easement shall include the 24-foot wide Parking Area Access Lane, starting from the entrance to the project site. This will assure that Pima County Wastewater Mangament Department’s maintenance vehicle have access to the public sewer at all times. SHEET 2. Show were the existing public sewer easement abandonment will start and end. It is assumed that the southeast corner of this easement will not be abandoned as the existing public sewer line within that area is not proposed to be abandoned. 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 |
| 06/09/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0016 Hazen Office Building 6/9/05 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: n/a NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: June 22, 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: vf 791-4505 DATE: 06/09/05 |
| 06/13/2005 | 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: D05-0016 HAZEN OFFICE BUILDING / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: JUNE 13, 2005 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 brief legal description: portion of lot 116, Hermosa Hills Estates, recorded in Bk. 15, Pg. 74. 2: Delete Magdalena St. from Title Block. |
| 06/15/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include a summary per DS 2-15.3.4.B. 2) Provide totals for the calculations on sheet NP-3. 3) The plans for 990 S. Harrison show the 30' ingress/egress easement to include a landscape strip on the south side of the paal. Show this area and any curbing on plans. 4) Show and label required screen walls on the landscape and development plans. 5' masonry screen walls are required for portions of the south and west property lines. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 5) Revise the plans to provide a 6' high screen wall for any loading areas. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 6) A 5' high screen is required along Magdalena Street due to the residential properties across the street. LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 7) The project abuts natural open space and existing landscaping . Add a note to the native plant preservtaion plan regarding the need for preservation of plants bordering the site and the need for temporary fencing at the project limit. DS 2-15.5.0 8) Revise Standard Specification note 8 on sheet NP-1 to refernce the appropriate City of Tucson standard. LUC 3.8.5 |
| 06/15/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: June 15, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D05-0016 Hazen Office Building CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/15/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: HAZEN OFFICE BUILDING D05-0016 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted for review May 25, 2005. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. 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 Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 06/17/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 173 estimated daily traffic (in average 24 hour vehicle trips) |
| 06/20/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 20, 2005 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Hazen Office Building Development Plan D05-0016 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 15 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Revised Drainage Report The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan and Drainage Report for Hazen Office Building and does not recommend approval at this time. Development Plan Comments: 1. The lot split procedure creating this lot has not been completed (S04-191). Contact Peter McLaughlin in the Zoning/Landscape review section to complete the process. The Development Plan will not be approved until the lot split has been finalized. 2. .Provide a distinct symbol for the sewer easement to be abandoned. 3. Provide a detail for the solid waste container enclosure. Show pipe bollards at the rear and along each side. Show that there will be at least 10 feet clear between sets of bollards. 4. Revise the backup spur adjacent to the well site. The end of the backup spur must be at least 3 feet from the property line. Provide dimensions to show that the backup spur meets the requirements of Development Standard 3-05.2.2.D. 5. Revise the proposed grades in the northeast area of the PAAL. The proposed grades appear to create a potential for ponding. 6. Show how that water harvesting will be maximized. Show how water will be directed from buildings and parking areas toward landscaped areas to the extent feasible. (LUC 3.7.4.3 and LUC 3.7.4.5.B) 7. Add the required note: "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan." DS 2-05.2.2.C.1.b 8. Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, tohundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. DS 2-05.2.3.A 9. Clearly indicate the dimensions of the Magdalena Road right-of-way . Include pavement dimensions, sidewalks, curbs, and recordation information. DS DS 2-05.2.3.C 10. Provide floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations. Include water surface contours. DS DS 2-05.2.3.I 11. Show on the Development Plan how retention requirements will be met. Drainage Report Comments: 12. Since this lot was created after September 4, 1984, five-year threshold retention is required by the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson Arizona (Drainage Manual), Section 14.2.1. Provide required calculations and details for the retention basin. Include results of percolation tests that demonstrate that the retained volume will be disposed of within 12 hours. 13. Provide for the Long Term Maintenance Responsibilty as described in the Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.E. 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 |
| 06/23/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs at the access from Magdalena (DS 2-05.2.4.R) 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for Magdalena. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) 3. The access point from Magdalena appears to be less than 24' wide (minimum). Label this width. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/24/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 06/30/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-0016 Hazen Office Building Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 06/30/05 DUE DATE: 06/22/05 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 May 24, 2006. 2. The following items must be addressed. Identify conditions within the location map square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. It is preferable that the location map drawing not include all lots as depicted on the drawing. A stick drawing that includes all major and collector streets/names as well as the streets/names adjacent to the subject parcel be drawn and labeled. The recorded book and page data of the subdivisions within the square mile area of the location map are not required on a development plan drawing. Please revise the location map as requested. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2 3. The brief legal description in the title block must be revised to state that this site is a resubdivision of lot 116 of Hermosa Hills Estates. The original lot as platted in book 15 Page 74 appears to have been split several times within the past one to ten years. Provide all documentation related to the lot splits that has been submitted to and approved by the City of Tucson. As of this review it is the determination that a tentative plat and a final plat will be required due to the number of lots splits that have occurred with the time frame mentioned above. If you have any questions related to this comment please feel free to call Patricia Gehlen DSD Zoning Manager to discuss this matter. I will review the plan for compliance with Development Standards 2-05 for development plan format and content. Additional comments related to a tentative plat may be forthcoming. DS 2-05.G.2 Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the development plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) 4. Please list the owners telephone number in the owner's text block. DS 2-05.2.2.A.1 5. This project has been assigned the case number D05-0016. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 It is not clear why this project has been submitted for review as a development plan. I could not find any requirement for this project to be reviewed as a development plan. Please clarify what triggered the development plan requirement. 6. List as a general note the proposed use of the property. The note should state the use as follows. "The Proposed use is for Administrative and Professional Office DD 29". DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 7. The gross area of the lot under review has been noted. The gross area of the entire subdivision may be required based on the decision Patricia Gehlen on whether a tentative plat and final plat will be required. DS 2-05.2.2.B.11 8. Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot or other functional reference system. DS 2-05.2.3.A 9. Existing easements must be drawn labeled and dimensioned on the plan. Per the plan the existing sewer easement must be abandoned prior to approval of the development plan. List on the plan the recordation data of the abandonment of the existing easement. DS 2-05.2.3.B 10. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Provide the required information for the Magdalena Road. DS 2-05.2.3.C 11. List the zoning classifications adjacent to the property. DS 2-05.2.4.B 12. Dimension the PAAL area between the buildings and the parking spaces along the Magdalena Road and the PAAL area between the parking spaces on either side of the refuse enclosure. There does not appear to be sufficient space for a 24-foot PAAL between the parking spaces in question. It appears that the three parking spaces along the east property line closest to the refuse enclosure do not have the sufficient space to back up without running into any parked cars next to the west side of the enclosure. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Also a backup spur is required at the end of a row parking spaces. A backup spur has been depicted on the plan for parking area along the West Side of the building. The backup spur must be revised to correctly depict a backup spur as depicted in development standards 3-05.2.2.D 13. Although the building setbacks adjacent to commercial zones are zero the proposed building setbacks should be labeled. Also the building setback from the street perimeter must be drawn and labeled. The required building setback from the street perimeter is the greatest of 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the structure from the property line. Add requested information. DS 2-05.2.4.J 14. Please define clearly, label and dimension the sidewalk areas around the building. The sidewalks must have a clear width of four feet throughout the development. The sidewalks on the site must be constructed in a manner that creates a continuous circulation path within the development and must connect to the sidewalk in the right-of-way. The sidewalk from the right-of-way has not been depicted on the plan. The required sidewalk must be provided from the street right-of-way area to the building or must connect to the onsite sidewalk circulation. All sidewalks must be constructed of concrete and must be physically separated from the vehicular use area (PAAL) except at crosswalks. Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. DS 2-05.2.4.K Draw and label existing or proposed sidewalks along Magdalena Road. The required sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. DS 2-05.2.4.L 15. Label the building heights and dimension the building footprint. DS 2-05.2.4.N 16. As indicated in comment 12 three of the parking spaces do not meet the minimum backup area (24-foot PAAL) behind the spaces and may not be acceptable. Per the parking calculation the required parking has been provided but no excess parking. If the three parking spaces in question cannot be approved as presented on the plan excess spaces has not been provided to cover the other three spaces. Include in the parking calculation the number of Handicapped parking spaces required and provided. Also the number of van accessible parking spaces required and provided. 17. Indicate on the plan the location and type of postal service to be provided for this development. If a freestanding pedestal is proposed draw and label the location. If the postal service will be provided inside the building indicate by note. DS 2-05.2.4.V 18. Indicate the locations and types of any freestanding signage and existing billboards. The location size and type of sign must labeled. DS 2-05.2.4.W 19. See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. 20. Demonstrate the maneuverability into and out of the loading zone. Also it appears that two way traffic is proposed via an east/west drive. The PAAL must meet the same requirements as the onsite PAALs. The PAAL must be a minimum of 24 feet in width and paved from the new development to Harrison Road. Provide a drawing that demonstrates that the drive has been approved as part of another project and has been developed according. The plan must also demonstrate requirements for pedestrian access and how many developments the PAAL services. Include with the next submittal a copy of the documents related to this 30-foot PAAL/drive and how it grants the use of this PAAL for the proposed development. The recordation data for the drive must be listed on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.O 21. Add in a matrix table all development criteria related to the proposed use/development designator. The criteria must include the allowed and proposed FAR, building height, number of required and provided vehicle and bicycle parking (handicapped parking), loading zones and setbacks based on the perimeter yard indicator and street building setbacks. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D050016dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/05/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 5, 2005 E. Bruce Wilson, P.E., R.L.S. Landmark Engineering, Inc. 3845 North Business Center Drive, Suite 107 Tucson, AZ 85705 Subject: D05-0016 Hazen Office Building Development Plan Dear Bruce: Your submittal of May 25, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (fire, addressing, environmental services, waste water, engineering, zoning, landscaping, traffic, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (zoning, engineering, landscaping, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 628-1392 |