Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0015
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/29/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/06/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * No enclosure and not screened per the development standards. * No mention or provisions shown for recycling. |
| 04/06/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | Macsteel ________________________________ 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: D06-0015 MACSTEEL / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: April 6, 2006 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: Please provide copy of recorded ingress/egress prior to approval of this project and Show point of access. Note: If you do not have access to Kolb Road, the address will need to be changed. |
| 04/10/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The following notes should be added to the plan. 1) Additional fire hydrants shall be provided as required by the fire code in accordance with the C.O.T. Standards. 2) An approved water supply capable of supplying the projected fire flow for fire protection shall be provided and extended to serve directly any and all subdived properties. 3) "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be provided as needed to provide 20' clear, unobstructed width along all fire apparatus access roadways in accordance with the fire code. Additional comments A) Provide 20' wide fire apparatus access roads to within 150' of all portions of the building(s). B) No dead ends roads permitted. Provide turn arounds installed in accordance with C. O. T. Standards. |
| 04/12/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 12, 2006 TO: Jim Watson James R Watson Architect PLC 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: Macsteel Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0015 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. 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0015, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. It appears that this project proposes to connect to an existing private sewer north of the project site, therefore this project will require a Joint Use And Maintenance Agreement. Please contact Ilene Deckard (Pima County Wastewater Management Department) at (520) 740-6544 to coordinate this matter. Provide the required 8 ½ x 11 legal description of the proposed private sewer easement by separate instrument. Clearly show this easement with its dimension and borders on the layout on Sheet D-2. SHEET 1. Add the following General Note 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 D-2. Show the length, size and slope of the proposed private sewers. SHEET D-2. For reference purposes, assign a number to all newly proposed manholes/cleanouts. SHEET D-2. Show the rim and invert elevation for all newly proposed manholes/cleanouts. SHEET D-2. Show the proposed sewers all the way to their point of connection to the existing public sewer network. SHEET D-2. Show the existing public sewer to which this project proposes to connect, including the size and Pima County plan number. 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 |
| 04/13/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 2) Revise the native plant preservation plans to include all of the areas indicated on the development plan including areas where off-site grading may occur, such as the adjacent pubic right-of-way, the driveway/easement across El Paso Natural Gas Property, and the sewer easement across El Paso Natural Gas Property. 3) Revise the note regarding fencing/flagging requirements on the NPP plan to reference the appropriate City Code sections, rather than the Pima County equivalents. DS 2-15.5.0 & 6.0 4) Revise the Plant Calculations note on the NPP plan, no additional calculations were received and none appear to be required. 5) Revise the landscape plan to clarify the NPP summary. It should account the number of transplants and the number of mitigation plants for each species. DS 2-15.3.4. 6) Clarify the note regarding the native plant relocation. The plan should indicate which option is to be employed. Due to grading operations it may be necessary to establish a temporary nursery on the site. Show the location of any nursery on the native plant preservation plan. DS 2-15.3.4.A.5 7) Revise the text on the native plant preservation plan so that all lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. DS 2-05.2.1.A 8) Revise the last Street landscape Border note on sheet L-1 as necessary to correspond with the landscape plan. There appears to be some conflict regarding the species used. 9) Revise the landscape plan legend to list the quantities for all plants. DS 2-07.2.2 10) Revise the Plant Schedule to use the correct botanical and common names for the plant symbol "DO". 11) The perimeter of all vehicular use areas must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing. DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 12) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 13) The project is required to meet the requirements of C9-03-02. A modification to the conditions of that case may be required. Revise the plans as necessary to meet any applicable conditions. |
| 04/14/2006 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The drainage statement and development plan are not recommended for approval. The following comments are offered: Drainage Statement: Please place the assigned Activity Number D06-0015 on the cover sheet. Under "Existing Conditions" it is stated that the drainage that passes through the RCBC beneath Kolb Road does not affect this property. The Century Business Park report report for the subdivision north of this development did identify that this project was affected by this flow. Perform a HEC-RAS (or equivalent model) analysis of the flow through Century Business Park to the face of the RCBC to determine the existing conditions floodplain affecting this parcel. If said analysis demonstrates that this parcel is affected, an encroachment analysis demonstrating compliance with the Floodplain Ordinance and Development Standards is required. Table 1 demonstrates an increase in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year flows from this parcel. This site lies within a balanced basin and detention/retention is required to reduce the developed condition 2-, 10-, and 100-year flows to at or below existing condition levels. Threshold retention for the 5-year volume is required to reduce the 5-year volume to at or below existing condition levels. Each detention/retention basin shall include a sediment trap, or other sediment control measures as approved by the City Engineer, to prevent sedimentation of the detention/retention basin. Each sediment trap, or other sediment control measure, shall have a provision for total drainage. Detention/retention basin floors shall be graded to drain either toward the outlet structure or other logical point. Basin floors shall not be flat. Detention/retention basin sideslopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Detention/Retention Manual for human activity zones. Rectangular basin shapes shall be avoided unless necessitated by recreational or visual amenities within the basin. Vegetation shall be used as screening and/or security barrier for a minimum of ten percent of the basin perimeter. All security barriers and screening for detention/retention basins shall meet Safe By Design guidelines. Figure 2 shows an all-weather access route that seems to go through areas used for parking vehicles and loading/unloading on a Century Business Park (CBP) lot. The areas used for loading/unloading and vehicle parking cannot be used as all-weather access routes. Include an analysis of the floodplain from the culverts within the CBP to the face of the box culvert at Kolb Road. Demonstrate all-weather access in an area that is not used for vehicle/trailer parking or loading areas. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Detention/retention is required since the site lies within a balanced basin (Julian Wash) and is greater than one acre in size. Information in the Century Business park drainage report does not indicate that detention/retention for this parcel was accounted for in the Pima County-owned detention basin. Show areas of detention/retention including 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevations. Each detention/retention basin shall include a sediment trap, or other sediment control measures as approved by the City Engineer, to prevent sedimentation of the detention/retention basin. Each sediment trap, or other sediment control measure, shall have a provision for total drainage. Detention/retention basin floors shall be graded to drain either toward the outlet structure or other logical point. Basin floors shall not be flat. Detention/retention basin sideslopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Detention/Retention Manual for human activity zones. Rectangular basin shapes shall be avoided unless necessitated by recreational or visual amenities within the basin. Vegetation shall be used as screening and/or security barrier for a minimum of ten percent of the basin perimeter. All security barriers and screening for detention/retention basins shall meet Safe By Design guidelines. Indicate the existing ground elevation on the site based upon City of Tucson datum (indicate COT field book number and page). If another datum was used, indicate that datum and a conversion to COT datum. If the land slopes at aproximately one percent or less, contour lines shall be drawn at intervals not exceeding one foot. Indicate 100-year discharge and contributing drainage area for each drainage entering and leaving the site. Indicate existing conditions and proposed conditions regulatory floodplain boundaries affecting this site. If the site is affected by an existing floodplain, indicate whether it is to remain or be removed. If the floodplain is to remain or a portion remains on the property, add the following notes: "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." and "A floodplain use permit is required for this project." Show sufficient finished grades and finished floor elevations to determine site drainage pattern. Provide written verification that the access route to this parcel are to be constructed with the owners' permission. The development plan indicates grading to occur on adjacent properties. Provide written verification that this grading will occur with the owners' permission. Obtaining a slope easement from these owners is highly encouraged for any slopes that remain on other properties after construction of this project. Indicate recording data for ingress/egress easement for new 32' driveway through the Century Business Park and EPNG properties. General Note #7 refers to Dooley-Jones Job No. 84-146. Dooley-Jones Job No. 85-146 was performed for Century Business Park. This parcel was not part of Century Business Park. What is the purpose of this note? The Dooley-Jones report did not include any calculations showing development of this lot. If the purpose of this general note is to attempt to justify proposed drainage conditions on this parcel, please delete the general note as it is irrelevant. Indicate the datum (NAVD 88 or NGVD 29 or other datum to be described) used in General Note #23. GRADING PLAN ("stockpile") Although not part of this development plan submittal, the comments are listed below. A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. Place the ADEQ Authorization Number for the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the SWPPP documents. Delete the "This set of plans shall serve as the Type 2 ..." note from the plans. This is typically a note found on plans submitted to Pima County for review and is not applicable in the City of Tucson. Indicate the datum (NAVD 88 or NGVD 29 or other datum to be described) used in General Note #1. COT-issued grading permits cover work only on private property. Earthen bank detail #C1 and the linework on Sheet 2 indicates grading in COT right-of-way. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from the Permits & Codes section of TDOT prior to any work in the right-of-way. The grading plan indicates grading to occur on adjacent properties. Provide written verification that this grading will occur with the owners' permission. Obtaining a slope easement from these owners is highly encouraged for any slopes that remain on other properties after construction of this project. Indicate existing conditions and proposed conditions regulatory floodplain boundaries affecting this site. If the site is affected by an existing floodplain, a floodplain use permit must be obtained. If construction of the access across the EPNG parcel or Century Business Park properties occurs within the floodplain, this will also trigger the requirement for a floodplain use permit (can be combined with the one for onsite grading). See DS 11-01 for requirements for grading setbacks from property boundaries. If adjacent property owners do not provide written authorization for the grading as shown, grading must be setback as per the development standard. Matt Flick Engineering Manager |
| 04/14/2006 | 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 D06-0015 Macsteel 04/13/06 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-02 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan, Map Detail #9 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/25/06 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 04/10/06 Urban Planning and Design Comments D06-0015 Macsteel April 10, 2006 A change of conditions requesting deletion of condition #2 is pending Mayor and Council consideration proposed for May 8, 2006. The condition: “All buildings and the asphalt storage tanks shall be constructed of, or painted a color that blends with the natural surroundings.” The justification for deletion of this condition is due to change of use from a storage and distribution of asphalt business to a steel cutting operation. Plan policy calls for sensitivity to the existing community and its natural resources; therefore, Urban Planning staff has recommended the condition stay but be reworded as follows: “All buildings shall be constructed of, or painted a color that blends with the natural settings.” Please add the rezoning conditions to the General Notes section of the Development Plan. |
| 05/05/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | 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 |
| 05/11/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 159984 May 10, 2006 James R. Watson, Architect ATTN: Mr. Jim Watson 3026 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 Dear Mr. Watson: SUBJECT: MACSTEEL D06-0015 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted March 29, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan, the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Todd Stocksdale at 918-8715, should you have any technical questions. My telephone number is 918-8228. Sincerely, Ann Slusser Scheduling Coordinator Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (by e-mail) F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) |
| 05/12/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D06-0015 Macsteel Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 05/12/06 DUE DATE: 4/25/07 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 4/24/07. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been assigned the case number D06-0015. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.10 Indicate that this project is designed to meet the overlay zone for: Sec. 2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. Kolb Rd which abuts the east side of the property is on the MS&R map. 4. DS 2-05.2.3.B If applicable, provide the location, width, purpose and recordation information of all easements. Provide width and recordation information for ingress/egress easement indicated over adjacent property to the north. Are the proposed railroad tracks to be owned by the property owner or by the railroad? If owned by the railroad an easement will be required. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.A There is a solid line across the approximate center of the page which appears to have been placed on the plans in error. Please clarify. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Clearly indicate the direction of traffic flow for the one way, 16' wide, PAAL along the south and east sides of the property. Curbs, fences or other types of barriers are required to prevent vehicles from driving on or into unimproved portions of the property. These will be required along all edges of the vehicular use areas. See DS 3-05.2.3.C. 7. DS2-05.2.4.F Indicate the future ½ right of way and future curb location for Kolb Rd. which is on the MS&R map. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide pedestrian circulation connecting to existing or proposed sidewalks in the right of way or from the property line along Kolb Rd. to the building including sidewalks. crosswalks, and handicap ramps. See DS 2-08.4.1.A. DS 2-08.4.1.A The sidewalk in front of the building must be a raised sidewalk with handicap ramps at the access aisle or provide a strip of truncated domes 24" wide the entire length of the sidewalk where the asphalt and sidewalk meet. 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. This includes a 24" width of truncated domes at the sidewalk where the handicap access aisle meets the sidewalk. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.M Provide dimensions of the foot print building on the on the plan. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.O Clearly indicate the vehicular maneuverability for the proposed loading zones. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.P Provide a detail for the required handicap parking sign. In note number 14, it states that the required height to the bottom of sign is 60". This is incorrect, please revise to the required 84" above grade to the bottom of the sign. 12. DS 2-05.2.4.Q The indicated location of the bicycle parking spaces may have to be relocated due to the required pedestrian circulation required in comment #8. 13. DS 2-05.2.4.U List all of the applicable rezoning conditions on the plan. Provide a response letter indicating how compliance has been meet for all of the rezoning conditions. 14. DS 2-05.2.4.W If applicable, provide the locations and types of proposed signs as well as any existing signage including billboards. 15. Upon discussion with staff and research of the recent approval of the change to rezoning conditions it has come to our attention that the use of this property may not be as indicated. A letter was submitted for the change to the rezoning stating that coils of steel where to be unloaded and cut to different sizes and then shipped out to various locations. This does not meet with LUC definition of Wholesale Use Group but appears to be more in line with the General Manufacturing . This comment is for information purposes only. It is important to note that a certificate for occupancy may not be issued for a manufacturing use, if the LUC parking requirements are not meet for a manufacturing use. 16. Depending on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments futher comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0015dp.doc |
| 05/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 13, 2006 Jim Watson James R. Watson Architect PLC 3026 North Country Club Road Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D06-0015 Macsteel Development Plan Dear Brent: Your submittal of March 30, 2006 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 of the Development Plan 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 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Environmental Services, Addressing, Fire, Wastewater, Landscape, Community Planning, Engineering, TEP, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Landscape, Community Planning, Engineering, Zoning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, 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: 723-3744 |