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: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0009
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/15/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 07/16/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/24/2008 | 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 D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum (Revised) () Tentative Plat (x) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-23 – Harkins Theaters – Calle Santa Cruz NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: July 24, 2008 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 (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: July 24, 2008 |
| 07/31/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum -Revised D.P. Development Plan - Revised to depict as built conditions at 60% completion TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 24, 2008 DUE DATE: August 7th, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. DP-01: Data tables do not match the last table submitted for review. While the numbers listed in the revised DP supposedly are the as-built numbers they do not match the last data table provided to DSD when Major 5 was converted to Majors 5 and 6. The building square footages listed in permits plus also do not match the revised data table or the table provided with majors 5 and 6. The building square footages for all shell buildings submitted, reviewed, and approved must be verified. 2. DP-02: a. Revised notes could not be verified on sheet 2. Please specify which notes were revised. 3. DP-03: a. Sewer keynotes S6 and S10 and Water keynote 17 could not be verified on sheet 3. Please clarify. b. Majors 5 and 6 are not depicted on sheet 3 as indicated per your revision notes. 4. DP-04: a. Keynote 10 is labeled on the plan but is not listed under the Construction Notes text block. b. It is not clear from the plan whether sections of the sidewalk from the most westerly bridge, next to the parking lot and heading northwest four rows of double loaded parking are constructed as raised or flush sidewalks. If the sidewalks are raised, access ramps with truncated domes are required. Clarify c. It is not clear what direction Keynote 5 which is labeled next most westerly bridge is point to. The note is for an access ramp but the leader is pointing towards a DG path. Clarify and revises as required. 5. DP-05: a. Clarify if the existing 24" concrete cylinder water main was removed. Water note 3 indicates the main is to be removed. If in fact the main was removed the note should be revised to state so or removed unless it is needed alternative reasons. b. Sewer note S2 is labeled on the plan but is not listed under the Sewer Notes text block. c. Water key note 11 could not be verified on sheet 5. d. Add the recording information for the 30' wide easement, water key note 17. Also add any applicable recording information for all easements on all sheets. If the recording information in on the utilities plan sheet please respond as such. e. Key note 3 is for a screen wall. The screen wall for the loading zone behind major 1 has not been drawn on the plan. Add as required. f. Ensure that both class one and class two bicycle parking facilities are drawn on the plan. Key notes for both class one and two are listed under the "Construction Notes" but the class two facilities are not depicted in any of the keynoted locations. This comment is valid for all sheets where this issue occurs. Revise all affected sheets. 6. DP-06: a. Water note 13 states "Existing Well Feed to Be Removed". Clarify if this has occurred and if so revise the note appropriately. b. As is the case on most if not all sheets, the bicycle parking class one and class two facilities must be drawn on the plan. The only facilities that were found on the plan are the class one. This comment applies to all sheets where both facilities have not been depicted. c. I believe that a DSMR has been requested for the trash enclosure behind the Penny's building. The trash enclosure was constructed but does not meet the minimum COT development Standard requirements. If the DSMR is approved the case number must be listed in the lower right corner of all plan sheets and a note on the cover sheet stating the case number, date of approval, and conditions of approval (if any) must be listed. The note should also state the sheet number or building number for verification. d. It also appears that the public sidewalk or portions of it are within the spectrum property. Prior to approval of the revised development plan TDOT and the Real Estate division must approve the location and a pedestrian access easement must be recorded. Contact Jim Rossi to discuss this issue, 791-4181. 7. DP-07: a. Key note 9 has been labeled on sheet 7 but is not listed under Construction Notes text block. Add as required. 8. DP- 08 a. Construction notes 17, 38, and 44 could not be verified on sheet 8. b. Sewer key note S6 could not be verified on sheet 8. c. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain Table. The table has been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the table is not required, located on another sheet etc. d. The class one and two bicycle parking facilities at the southwest corner of the Shops one building have been left off the plan. The bicycle parking facilities must be added to plan sheet 8. 9. DP-09 a. Water notes 6, 15, and 16 could not be verified on sheet 9. b. The access ramps next to pads 1, 10 and 11 must be annotated with the proper key notes. c. The access ramp along the south side of PAD 1 does not appear to provide sufficient space for a four sidewalk behind the ramp. Clarify if this is the existing condition for this building or has the ramp been modified. d. The class two bicycle parking facility is not clear on the plan. Ensure that the facility is clearly depicted. e. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain Table. The table has been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the table is not required, located on another sheet etc. 10. DP-10 a. Water Notes, key note 15 is annotated on the plan but has not been listed under the Water Notes text block. b. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain Table. The table has been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the table is not required, located on another sheet etc. c. The bicycle parking facilities next to Major 4 pad have been removed. Clarify if the facilities were eliminated and if so were the spaces excess. IF the facilities have been relocated clarify the location and number of spaces for class on and two relocated.. 11. DP-11 a. Construction Notes 35 and 36 could not be verified on Sheet 11. Clarify if the notes were listed under the Construction Notes text block as a mistake or did the locations of the key notes not get annotated? b. The bicycle parking along the east side of PAD 7 needs to be annotated with the appropriate key note. It appears that numbers of bicycle parking spaces have been reduced clarify why. c. It is not clear what the symbol for the bicycle parking along the north east corner of PAD 8 is intended to depict. Clarify the locations of the class on and class two facilities. d. Two loading zones are required for PAD 8. The revised plan depicts only one loading zone. Revise the plan to depict two loading zones. 12. DP-12 No Comments 13. DP-13 a. For consistency, label the wheel stops at the Disabled Parking spaces with the correct key note. Some sheets have the key note some do not. The same thing is occurring with the access ramps at the disabled parking spaces. Some of the ramps are annotated with the key note and others are not. b. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain and Sewer Manhole Tables. The tables have been left out or removed on the revised plan sheet 13. Clarify if the tables are not required, located on another sheet etc. 14. DP-14 a. OK 15. DP-15 a. Water note 14 could not be verified on sheet 15. The note is listed under the Water Notes text block. b. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain Table. The table has been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the table is not required, located on another sheet etc. 16. DP-16 a. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain and Sewer Manhole Tables. The tables have been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the tables are not required, located on another sheet etc. 17. DP-17 a. The previous approved D.P. included a Storm Drain Table. The table has been left out or removed on the revised plan. Clarify if the table is not required, located on another sheet etc. b. Label the transformers on this sheet and all other sheets where the transformers occur and are not labeled. 18. There are several sheets where some key notes have been added but could not be verified. There are also items that have been labeled wit a key note but the same items on the same sheets or other sheets have not. Please be consistent with the annotation and key note labels. 19. Some of the sewer or water notes indicate to be removed, the question is, have the items been removed and should the notes indicate so. Where key notes state that an easement "to be removed or abandoned" has been noted it is not clear on the sheets whether the easement has in fact been removed or abandoned. If the easements have been abandoned include the recordation information, "Docket and Page" numbers as reference or if the information is on the utilities plans sheet reference the plan sheet number for the recordation information. 20. Please clarify if the report for the re-alignment has been accepted and approved by the DSD Engineer. Clarify on the plan where the erosion hazard setback line has been relocated based on the bank protection and re-alignment. The line may shown best on the overall development plan sheet 22 or 23. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D060009revdp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/31/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Revise the plans to cloud changes to plant quantities. The plans sealed 9/06 indicate different quantities that are not maintained and are not noted as revisions on the current submittal. |
| 08/01/2008 | ANDY DINAUER | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 29, 2008 To: Brent Steffenhagen Stantec Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: Tucson Spectrum Ph. 2 - Calle Santa Cruz & Drexel Rd. Dp REV 1 - 1st Submittal D06-009 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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 3: Show all of the public manholes in Calle Santa Cruz and include the IMS #’s with rim and invert elevations. Sheet 8,11,14 & 17: The construction plan # shown for the existing public sewer line is not correct and several of the IMS #’s for the existing manholes are not shown correctly. A formal variance approval must be obtained for the non-standard drop across the public manholes. The relocation of this public sewer line will not qualify this project for connection fee discounts and a sewer service agreement will not be required. Show recording information for the 40’ public sewer easement created for the relocated public sewer line. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $250.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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. |
| 08/01/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 30, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum: Development Plan(7-10-08) Approved. |
| 08/06/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/08/2008 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/16/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 16, 2008 Lonny Rollins Stantec Consulting, Inc. 8211 South 48th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85044 Subject: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum Revised Development Plan Dear Lonny: Your submittal of July 10, 2008 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 3 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Wastewater, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (602) 431-9562 dp-resubmittal |