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 - D05-0017
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/25/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/26/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved May 26, 2005. |
| 06/01/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Buildings one and three show single enclosures for each. Both can be serviced as shown. There is no mentioned of recycling for the two buildings. * Building two shows two enclosures. The enclosure to the N-E has a conflict with the 14feet by 40 feet clear area that is required in front of the enclosure. The parking to the north and the wall of the adjacent west enclosure falls with in the clear area. (It is assumed that one of the enclosures is for recycling.) * If there is a resturant in any of the buildings there may be a need for special handling of the refuse and the grease container. |
| 06/04/2005 | 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 D05-0017 Williams Centre Blocks 8&9 06/02/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-07, C12-85-51, D02-0025 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Williams Addition PAD (PAD-1) GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Broadway (gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: June 23, 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: June 7, 2005 Please remove all references to “educational use” that is shown on the development plan. Per Walter Tellez, Zoning Administrator, the University of Phoenix would be classified as “Administrative and Professional Office use” since the applicant indicated that classroom space was less than office space. Documentation of this interpretation should also accompany the development plan submittal. Changing from educational use to office will affect the parking calculations, off-street loading requirements, and bicycle parking calculations. Per the PADs Development Area C, Exhibit B, financial institute is not allowed within this area of the PAD. Financial institutes would fall under commercial services, which is allowed in other portions of the PAD. This use must be removed from the development plan, unless a determination was made by the Zoning Administrator and the applicant has a letter stating so. If this is not the case then the applicant would have to apply for a change of condition for the PAD to allow financial institute as an allowable use for blocks indicated. Anything which alters allowable uses per Section XII.D of the PAD document cannot be considered as a minor change. Per Section IX of the PAD, the development plan is to include an energy conservation plan, which addresses: 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. Passive and active energy conservation measures proposed for the projects As part of the development plan submittal the PAD requires the following plans be attached per section XI: Floor Plans Elevation Drawings Cross Sections Sign Plans Lighting Plans Please provide all applicable plans with the next submittal. As part of the review process the PAD requires that the plans first be submitted to the owner, or it’s representatives. Written approval by the owner must be provided to the Department of Urban Planning and Design as part of the submittal. Please replace the required/allowed FAR indicated for parcel 2 to 5.0 as indicated by the PAD. Please remove the reference to the public street setback for the east for Parcel 2, since this setback is not applicable. |
| 06/04/2005 | 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 D05-0017 Williams Centre Blocks 8&9 06/23/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-07, C12-85-51, D02-0025 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Williams Addition PAD (PAD-1) GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Broadway (gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: June 23, 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: June 7, 2005 Please remove all references to “educational use” that is shown on the development plan. Per Walter Tellez, Zoning Administrator, the University of Phoenix would be classified as “Administrative and Professional Office use” since the applicant indicated that classroom space was less than office space. Documentation of this interpretation should also accompany the development plan submittal. Changing from educational use to office will affect the parking calculations, off-street loading requirements, and bicycle parking calculations. The required parking calculation for office use is 1 space per 300 square feet (sq) of gross floor area (GFA). Per Section IX of the PAD, the development plan is to include an energy conservation plan, which addresses: 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. Passive and active energy conservation measures proposed for the projects As part of the development plan submittal the PAD requires the following plans be attached per section XI: Floor Plans Elevation Drawings Cross Sections Sign Plans Lighting Plans Please provide all applicable plans with the next submittal. As part of the review process the PAD requires that the plans first be submitted to the owner, or it’s representatives. Written approval by the owner must be provided to the Department of Urban Planning and Design as part of the submittal. Please replace the required/allowed FAR indicated for parcel 2 to 5.0 as indicated by the PAD. Please remove the reference to the public street setback for the east for Parcel 2, since this setback is not applicable. |
| 06/09/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 8, 2005 TO: Eduardo Gonzalez Rick Engineering Company, 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: Williams Centre, Blocks 8 & 9 Development Plan – 1st Submittal D05-0017 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 D02-0025, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0017, 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 16 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 2. References to existing public sewers are made on this sheet, however no sewer structures (existing or proposed) are shown. Please delete all sewer information that appears on this sheet as it is shown on Sheet 3. 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.. SHEET 3. There are two proposed private sewer lines going from Building one to existing public sewer G-82-02 along with two newly proposed public manholes. One sewer line and one public manhole should suffice this building. Please make the necessary corrections. 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 |
| 06/13/2005 | 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: D05-0017 WILLIAMS CENTRE BLOCKS 8 & 9 / 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: Correct legal description in Title Block to: Blocks 8 and 9 of the Resubdivision of Williams Centre Blocks 7 thru 12, as recorded in Book 40, Page 84. |
| 06/15/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: WILLIAMS CENTRE, BLOCKS 8 & 9 D05-0017 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans submitted for review May 25, 2005. 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. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 917-8745 if you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 06/16/2005 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | June 16, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D05-0017 PROJECT NAME: Williams Centre Blocks 8 & 9 PROJECT ADDRESS: 250 S. Craycroft Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Blanca Espino, Engineering Associate RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Letter The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The Drainage Letter is acceptable. 3. Sheets 2 & 3 are not drawn to scale. Correct and revise. 4. Indicate case number D05-0017 in the lower right corner, next to the title block. DS 2-05.2.1.K 5. 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. DS 2-05.2.3.C Correct and revise for all streets. 6. Sheet 1, General Note #4 indicates the Rezoning Conditions are listed on Sheet 3. This note is incorrect. Correct and revise. 7. Sheet 2, Keynote # 2 indicates a 3-foot curb opening for drainage. This symbol with is not shown graphically on plan. Correct and revise. 8. Sheet 2, Keynote # 9, 20-foot x 345-foot sight visibility triangle for the right turning lane is to be measured from the face of curb. Correct and revise. 9. Plan symbols indicating cross-section detail ex: A/3 etc. requires to have the sheet number changed. Correct and revise. |
| 06/16/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plans to meet the native plant mitigation requirements indicated in the summary. 2) Revise the sections on sheets 2 and 3 of the development plan to use the correct sheet designator. 3) Revise the development & landscape plans to retain the the 20' wide landscape border adjacent to the deceleration lane on Craycroft Road. 4) An outdoor lighting plan is required. C9-01-07. 5) Show freestanding signage on the landscape plan per C9-01-07. 6) Provide letter regarding compliance with conditions of rezoning. C9-01-07 7) Revise sheets 2 and 3 of the development plan to remove all unused keynotes. Several on each sheet are not used. 8) Revise the landscape plan to include preservation fencing for phase 1 protected plants and landscaping. 9) The landscape plans will be required to conform to the revised canopy tree standards for vehicular use areas. LUC 3.7.2.3 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 07/10/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-0017 Williams Center Blocks 8 & 9 Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 07/10/05 DUE DATE: June 23, 2005 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. This project has been assigned the development plan case number D06-0017. Please list the assigned case number in the lower right corner of all development plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 3. Per the Williams Addition PAD document the proposed uses of Educational and Financial are not allowed in Blocks 8 or 9. Please revise the proposed uses as required or submit documentation that Mayor and Council have approved changes to the PAD and will allow the proposed uses besides the Office, Retail, and Restaurant. The requested revision will impact development criteria such as vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zones, floor area ratio, and building heights etc. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 The PAD is silent on Parking structures as a use. There is no mention in the PAD one way or the other whether a two story parking structure is allowed. Please provide documentation from Glenn Moyer supporting the construction of a detached or attached two story parking structure. This may be a significant change of development plan that may require approval by Mayor and Council for the proposed garage structure. Specific response requested in writing and supporting documentation on this item. 4. Add to general note 6 that blocks 8 and 9 are affected by the MS&R overlay. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 5. Please insure that all existing and proposed easements are drawn, dimensioned and labeled on the plan. The recordation data for the existing or proposed easements must also be listed. All new easements must be recorded prior to approval of the development plan and the recordation data must be labeled on the plan unless the recordation will take place when the development plan is recorded. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G 6. In order to verify that the street building setbacks (from Craycroft Road) have been met, the curb to property line dimension must be drawn and dimensioned on the plan. I acknowledge that a cross section for Craycroft Road has been depicted on sheet three but the dimension from the back of sidewalk to the property line is labeled as varies. DS 2-05.2.3.C List the overall height of the garage structure in order to verify the required and proposed building setbacks. The building setback requirements for the garage are the same as they are for the principal structures. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this item. 7. Please provide approved and stamped documentation that the City of Tucson has approved the lot reconfiguration and lot split of blocks 8 and 9. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this item. DS 2-05.2.4.A 8. Drive-through lanes are not permitted in the Williams Addition PAD. See page (Traffic Plan) V-15 note 9 of the Williams Addition PAD document. The Amendment did not remove the restriction on drive-through lanes. The drive-through lanes proposed for building 3 must be removed. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Indicate on the plan by keynote or detail drawing for any proposed covered parking for the surface parking lot. The size of the structure and the height must be labeled. If the covered parking structures are proposed and are adjacent to the street perimeter indicate the building setbacks. The parking structures must be setback one-foot from the PAAL or the back of the parking spaces per development standards 3-05.2.2.B.2 9. All required pedestrian sidewalks must be constructed of concrete or materials of similar hardness and must be physically separated from all vehicular areas including between parking spaces. Please clearly show by either a keynote or typical detail drawing how the sidewalks will be constructed and demonstrate the physical separation. All required access ramps must be provided with a note stating the slope. By Federal mandate, truncated domes or early warning systems must be provided at all access ramps where the ramp is flush with the PAAL or road. Also the truncated dome must be provided at the HC parking access aisle and the adjacent access ramp. Draw a detail on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the truncated dome requirement. Call me if you have any questions on this requirement. DS 2-05.2.4.L 10. Submit a separate response letter that that addresses all the amended rezoning conditions and how this proposed development will comply with all the conditions. 11. Indicate thew location and type of postal service proposed for the new uses. DS 2-05.2.4.V 12. Additional review and comments related to the development criteria and the proposed uses will be forthcoming on the next review of the development plan based on the response to the comments 3 and 8. The criteria in question is vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zones, building heights, floor area ratio, lot coverage etc. 13. See the Landscape Reviewer comments related to landscaping requirements as listed in the PAD document and if applicable NPPO. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D050017dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/11/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | >>> Dale Kelch 06/24/2005 9:34:36 AM >>> Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/14/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 14, 2005 Eduardo H. Gonzalez Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85718 Subject: D05-0017 Williams Centre Blocks 8 & 9 Lot 85 Development Plan Dear Eduardo: 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 (environmental services, wastewater, landscaping, zoning, community planning, TEP, addressing, engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (landscaping, zoning, engineering. Community Planning, 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: 322-6956 |