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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0020
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/28/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/29/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans to curbing to protect landscape areas in the southern portion of the site. LUC 3.7.2.3.B 2) Case # C9-02-10 requires that the loading areas be located on the west side of the site. Revise as necessary or provide documentation regarding any approved change of conditions. 3) Provide written verification of any approvals received to locate a portion of the code required landscape border and irrigation in the public right-of-way area. Plans may not be approved unless permission is obtained. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 09/30/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D05-0020 BEACON GROUP EXPANSION / REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: September 30, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 1: Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2: All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 10/05/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * There is not sufficient information on these development plan to determine if this location meets the standards. Questions arise like is there wall protection, what is the screening of the service area, what are the doors, ect. * In assuming that the shown boxes are the dumpster location a 14 feet by 40 feet service area was drawned in front of each location. A radius template was also utilized to depict the service vehicle turnning movement to service the dumpsters. From both it showed that service and access is questionable. |
| 10/12/2005 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 13, 2005 FROM: Jose E. Ortiz Engineering Division SUBJECT: 2851 N. Balboa Avenue Development Plan D05-0020 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 36 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. All new sidewalk shall be 5 feet wide per City of Tucson Development Standards 3-01-3.3 Pedestrian Circulation Paths within public right of way along local roads. 4-foot sidewalks are adequate when placed on-site. 2. The City of Tucson has in recent months required that Truncated domes be provided on all wheel chair ramps that are adjacent to pavement surface servicing motorized vehicles. As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. 3. Need to provide and callout transitions between vertical curbs and headers. 4. On sheet 4 remove keynote 11 (calling for a stop sign) in the northern retention basin. 5. Clean up keynote callouts. Consider showing certain keynotes on one sheet but not the other to avoid confusion. For example keynotes 1 and 19 show up on both sheets but at different locations. Some items are called out under the keynotes but not shown in plan view. 6. Show 100-year floodplain in the legend. Drainage Report: 1. Response letter not provided in the last submittal. Please provide a letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The following comment did not appear to be addressed on the Development Plan, but the Drainage report calls out different Q's. Please discuss your approach and verify what Q's should be shown on the Development Plan "The proposed off-site discharge of 291cfs at concentration point 2 at the 100 year event exceeds the existing discharge of 283cfs at the same location. The increase in the proposed discharge is minimal but shall not exceed existing conditions. " If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1191 or Jose.Ortiz@ci.tucsonaz.govs Jose E. Ortiz Civil Engineer City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1191 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 10/18/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | Spandrel dedication is in for recording, Real Estate has no further comment. |
| 10/18/2005 | 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 D05-0020 Beacon Group Expansion 10/18/05 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: October 12, 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: October 11, 2005 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN D05-0020 -Beacon Group Expansion October 11, 2005 Development plan D05-0020 is subject to rezoning case C9-02-10. Concurrent to this development plan D05-0020 review, is a request for a change of condition to rezoning case C9-02-10. The request is to consider a new site design and a modification to rezoning condition # 6, which states; The loading zone and dumpster shall be located on the west side of the site. Therefore, the Department of Urban Planning and Design staff is unable to make comments until a final decision by Mayor and Council or by Development Services Administration has been completed on the change of condition review to rezoning case C9-02-10. |
| 10/26/2005 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D05-0020 308 W. Glenn Street Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 10/26/05 DUE DATE: October 12, 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 31, 2006. 2. This project was reviewed in accordance with applicable divisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). For reference, the Land Use Code can be found on the internet at www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning under Land Use Code. The Development Standard can be found at www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd under Codes. 3. Per 3.4.3.7.B of the LUC, if an expansion of land area, floor area or vehicular use area is proposed greater than 25%, the entire site must meet current code requirements. This plan was reviewed under such circumstances. As per your response to the above comment, a DSMR cannot be used to exempt the existing portion of this project from full code compliance. If there are existing items that do not meet current code then those items may be eligible for either a variance or a DSMR. This is the reason for zoning asking for existing conditions such as sidewalk size and location, handicap ramps, pedestrian circulation, etc. 4. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.1 and B.2, list the current zoning for the proposed development area as O-3, and C-2 for the existing development. Place a note next to the existing zoning note stating "Proposed zoning (for the proposed development sites) is C-2." The general note #2 is incorrect. It should read as follows: Existing zoning is: O-3 and C-2 Proposed zoning is C-2 5. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3, the correct proposed use of the development is required on the plan. Per advisement of the Zoning Administrator, this project is classified as "Craftwork", an Industrial Use. Please amend all references on the plan pertaining to the proposed use as educational to read "Craftwork/Industrial Use." Per conversation with the Zoning Administrator, in order to clarify the use of this development, provide a letter to Walter Tellez clearly describing the type of activity to be conducted on the site. He will then make a determination as to the use of this project. Provide a copy of the zoning administrator's determination letter with the next submittal. 6. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B Include any easements on the development plan, with their respective recording information. As per the assessors map the 20' utility easement indicated on the west sides of lots 8 and 9 is a road abandonment not an utility easement. Clarify. The easement shown at the southwest corner of lot 5 cannot have a building built over a right of way easement. If this easement is to be abandoned provide recordation information of the abandonment on the plan. 7. Per DS 2-05.2.3.C, the right of way information listed on the plan for Glenn Street indicates the total right of way is only 60 feet, when in actuality it is 64 feet per the City Major Streets and Routes Map. Please revise the plan accordingly. The above comment has not been addressed. Indicate clearly the future right of way and future curb locations with dimensions from future property line and existing buildings. Dedication of right of way is not required at this time as per the rezoning case # C9-02-10 8. Per DS 2-05.2.3.C, please call out all sidewalk areas throughout and surrounding the project. This comment has not been addressed. Provide side walk locations and widths for existing conditions. If sidewalk is not provided where the current code requires a sidewalk it must be provided. The sidewalk along the west side of building #2 appears to stop at the backup spur. Clarify if this sidewalk connects to an existing sidewalk on the south side of building #2. Clarify existing sidewalks around and connecting to existing buildings #1, #2 and to the south side of proposed building #3. 9. At the southeast corner of the property is indicated an existing driveway apron. Clarify the use of the area served by this driveway. If it is for vehicular use clearly indicate it as such by showing curbs, sidewalks, paving, handicap ramps, etc. If the area is not for vehicular use then the driveway apron must be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk. 10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.A, Coupled with the fact these parcels cannot function independently from one another and buildings generally cannot be built over lot lines, a combination of all lots and associated covenants will be required for this development to proceed. To obtain a copy of the covenants, please log onto the Development Services web site at www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms To obtain a copy of the tax combination forms, please contact the Pima County Assessor's Office. Zoning acknowledges the response regarding the in process lot combination. Until recordation information is provided on the plan this comment will remain. A lot combination does not remove lot lines but combines all parcels into a single tax parcel number. Please indicate the lot lines as a light dashed line to indicate that the lots have been combined and indicate the dashed lines as lot lines in the legend. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 and DS 3-05.C.1, please provide measurements for all PAALs and all points of ingress/egress shown on the plan. The minimum width required for all two-way PAALs is 24 feet. Address the above comment to the parking area at the southwest corner of the property. 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.E, and condition 3 of Rezoning Case C9-02-10, please list the docket and page recording information for the right of way spandrel dedication at the southwest corner of Balboa Avenue and Laguna Avenue. Zoning acknowledges the response regarding the in process of the recordation. This comment will remain until information is provided on the plan. 13. As a review of the entire site is required, please list the building setbacks -for existing and proposed -per current code standards. Note, the required setback for any building along Glenn Street frontage is the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall, measured from the back of the future curb. For setback purposes only, Balboa Avenue is considered a developing area because the site is bounded by a Major Streets and Routes. The required setback for any building along Balboa is based on the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall, measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. Please change the building setback notes on the plan to reflect the above information. Label and dimension existing and future curbs for both Balboa Avenue and Glenn Street, and the travel lane for Balboa Avenue. Please note, should building setbacks not meet the above, a Board of Adjustment process may be applicable, and further review comments may be forthcoming. See comment 34 for further information on the Board of Adjustment process. The above comment has not been addressed. The response of applying for a DSMR, which is not a Mayor and Council item, will not address the requirements listed above. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, 2-08.3.1 and 2-08.5.1.A, a continuous pedestrian pathway is required throughout the development. Sidewalks should be constructed at a minimum of 4' wide. The pedestrian pathway should connect all buildings and the street sidewalks to the site. Please clarify the pedestrian area located along the west side of the proposed and existing buildings meets the required width. In addition, please provide a 4' wide sidewalk connecting from the existing sidewalk at building 2, along the existing parking lot to Glenn Street. Please clarify if access is provided throughout existing building 1 to existing building 2, existing building 3, and the proposed building expansions. The above comment has not been addressed. 15. Per 2-05.2.4.L, all sidewalks abutting right of way areas and vehicle use areas must meet accessibility standards for physically disabled, thus access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. Per ANSI Chapters 4 and 5, all handicapped ramps must be constructed at a slope of 1:12 or less. Please revise the plans to show such ramps at all areas where sidewalks meet vehicular use areas. Provide a typical detail drawing of the handicapped accessible ramps with dimensions and ratios. In addition, condition 4 of rezoning case C9-02-10 also requires installation of verification of existing sidewalks, curbing, and access ramps along all street frontages. Truncated Domes (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. Please revise the plan accordingly. 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, label all building heights - from finished grade. Provide building footprint dimensions for all buildings and their specific use. The above comment has not been addressed. 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O and LUC 3.4.5.1, the number and size of loading zones required for this project depends upon the total gross floor area and property use. With the Craftwork Industrial Use, a total of 3 loading spaces are required, at a minimum dimension of 12 feet wide by 55 feet long. The plan indicates the loading zones are only 12 feet by 45 feet. The above comment may change based on the determination of use from the zoning administrator. 18. Per condition 6 of rezoning case C9-02-10, the loading zones shall be located on the west side of the site. The submitted development plan shows the loading zones positioned on the east side of the site. This proposal requires Mayor and Council approval, as this is a change of conditions to a rezoning case. Please revise the plan to meet the requirements of this rezoning case. The alternative is to obtain permission from Mayor and Council for a change in the rezoning conditions. Please contact the Rezoning Division staff at DSD for further information on this process. This comment will remain until documentation has been provided. 19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, the parking requirements for the development should be listed on the plan. Please revise the plan notes to state the development is to have parking per Land Use Code section 3.3.4, which requires Craftwork uses to have parking at a ratio of 1 space per 500 feet of gross floor area. With the approximate gross floor area of the entire development (scaled measurements were used for the smallest existing building to derive 860 square feet) consisting of 75,440 square feet, 151 parking spaces are required at minimum for the project. The plan lists 116 parking spaces are provided for the site. Staff's review determined only 113 parking spaces were shown on the plan. Please review and revise the plan to meet parking requirements. The alternative is to apply for and obtain a Board of Adjustment variance to delete a portion of required parking spaces. See comment 25 for further information on the Board of Adjustment process. This comment will remain until documentation has been provided 20. Per DS 3-05.2.2.D, please provide back up spurs at the north part of the existing parking lot on Lot 1, and at the west end of the row of handicapped parking spaces shown in front of the proposed building. Please review DS 3-05.2.2 for requirements for back up spurs, either dimensioning the plan or providing a typical detail drawing. Provide dimensions for the backup spur as per above comment. 21. The submitted plan shows an area along the west side of the site to have 60 degree angled parking spaces. Per DS 3-05.6.0.Table 1, for a 60 degree angled parking space at a width of 8.5 feet, a minimum depth of 19.8 feet is required for the parking space. If these spaces meet the requirement provide a dimension for clarification. 22. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q and LUC 3.3.4, the number of bicycle parking spaces required is equal to 8 percent of the total amount of vehicle parking spaces required or offered (greater number prevails). Of this ratio, 90 percent shall be class 1 (locker type) and 10 percent shall be class 2 (lock to fixture type). Please revise the plan notes and bicycle details accordingly. Please provide typical detail drawings of both bicycle parking types, including aerial and elevation drawings with dimensions. Be sure to clarify the width of the sidewalk area between the bicycle parking clearance space and the proposed building. The above comment has not been addressed. If class 1 bicycle spaces are to be located in the building, indicate the location on the plan as well as required directional signage. The above comment may change based on the determination of use from the zoning administrator. 23. If applicable, provide locations of signs with dimensions. In addition, staff noted possible free-standing lighting was provided in the proposed parking lot north of the proposed building. Please provide typical detail drawings for the pole, with height and type of lighting information. The above comment will remain until required information is provided on the plan. A general note does not meet the requirements. 24. Please review the plan and ensure a revision to the development requirement notes is done, based upon the prior review comments. 25. Once all corrections are made to the plan, staff will be able to provide official Board of Adjustment referral comments indicating the variances needed to proceed with the project and to obtain zoning approval. 26. Please note, depending upon the information provided on the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D005-020.308w.glenn.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 11/01/2005 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | October 31, 2005 To: Bruce Paton, Rick Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Beacon Group Expansion Lots 1, 4, 5, 8 & 9 of Blk. 25 of Coronado Heights Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D05-020 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Our office has received the Capacity Response letter No. 05-255, dated July 22, 2005. Our office has received the three, signed originals of the Sewer Service Agreements and forwarded them to PCWMD for processing. Item # 5 of Dickie Fernandez review letter dated June 23, 2005 has not been addressed. Please show the existing private sewer and label it as existing. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 11/01/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 1, 2005 Bruce M. Paton Rick Engineering Company 1745 East River Road, Suite 101l Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D05-0020 Beacon Group Expansion Development Plan Dear Bruce: Your submittal of September 28, 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Environmental Services, Community Planning, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Community Planning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) AS OF THIS DATE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER HAS NOT COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF THIS PLAN. THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED UNTIL THE WASTEWATER REVIEW IS FINALIZED. IF THE REVIEW IS DENIED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, PLEASE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS REQUIRED FOR RESUBMITTAL BY ONE (1). IF THE REVIEW IS APPROVED, NO ADDITIONAL COPIES ARE NEEDED. 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 |