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 - D06-0023
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/26/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/31/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 06/01/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise note 5 on the native plant preservation plan to identify the Development Services Department Landscape Section as the recipient of the periodic progress reports. 2) Revise note 2 regarding GPS coordinates. The plant inventory table does not appear to include the coordinates. 3) Revise the landscape plan to indicate the minimum width and square footage of tree planters in vehicular use areas. Planters are to be measured from the inside edge of tree planters. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e, LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 4) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and locations proposed for inert ground cover materials or seeded areas. A minimum two-inch layer is required. LUC 3.7.2.7., DS 2-06.5.2.C 5) Identify and locate on the landscape and native plant preservation plans all utility easements and facilities. DS 2-07.2.2.E 6) Trees and shrubs are to be selected and located so that, at maturity, they do not interfere with existing on-site or off-site utility service lines or utility easements or with solar access. LUC 3.7.2.6.B 7) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 8) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 9) Revise the landscape plan to locate the street landscape border along the street frontage of the site to enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape. Revise the plan to locate the street landscape border along the property line. Up to five (5) feet of the required ten-foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area if approved by the City Engineer. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 10) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. DS 2-05.2.1.A Revise all plans to comply. We noted that some of the utility designations, the legal descriptions and the Native Plant Inventory Summary tables do not comply. Other areas may also require correction. 11) All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List in Development Standard 9-06.0, except as otherwise provided in LUC 3.7.2.2. The Fraxinus velutina proposed in the parking areas is not on the approved list. 12) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Portions of the vehicular use area on the east side of the building and in the vicinity of the disabled parking spaces are not in compliance. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 13) Revise the landscape plan legend to include the plant quantities. DS 2-07.2.2 14) Revise the native plant preservation plan aerial photo to indicate the disposition of all Protected Native Plants keyed to the inventory list. DS 2-15.3.4.A.4 Show the locations of protected native plants designated as PIP or TOS, and required mitigation plants. DS 2-15.3.4.B.2 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 06/05/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Plan shows two location for refuse enclosures. The access to and the location for service meets the development standards. * The enclosure detail does not meet the development standards. An inside clear area of 10' between the steel pipe wall protection is required in both directions. NOTE: Question the number of enclosures for the size of the building and the proposed six different tenets. |
| 06/06/2006 | 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 D06-0023 VZW - Tucson 6/14/06 () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-88-1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: June 26, 2006 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: ( X ) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Elevations and Color Palette REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 6/14/06 Comments The applicant’s project is subject to the conditions of C15-88-1, which limits building height in I-1 to a height of 39 feet. It also prohibits certain uses as found in Attachment B. The uses proposed – administration and office use are allowed and are not in conflict with the uses found in Attachment B. Please correct General Note 1 to read “The Existing Zoning is: I-1 with restrictions.” Please include in the General Notes a note that states the development plan is subject to the following conditions found in C15-88-1 (Zoning Ordinance - 7090 ) “The I-1(R) portions shall be limited to a height of 39 feet and restricted by prohibiting the uses in Attachment B.” Please change General Note 20 (sheet 1 of 4) that maximum building height allowed is restricted to 39 feet. |
| 06/06/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT DO6-0023 ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. VZW - TUCSON -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 06/06/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: VZW-TUCSON D06-0023 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 30, 2006. It appears that there are no existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. 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. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build kc Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power Company Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 06/16/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering approves proposed development plan. |
| 06/20/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 19, 2006 TO: Joe Zeman EEC 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: VZW-Tucson Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0023 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, D06-0023, 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. A 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 of the development plan. 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 1. Add the following General Note THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. SHEET 1. Add the following General Note NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 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 2. Show the length, size and slope for the proposed private sewers. SHEET 2. Show the invert elevation for the proposed private cleanout. SHEETS 2 & 3. The symbol for existing public sewers shall be the same in sheets 2 and three and it should be depicted within the legend on sheet 1. SHEETS 2 & 3. Accurately show the six-digit Pima County manhole numbers for all existing public manholes shown on this sheet. While it is not a requirement to delete their rim and invert elevations, they may be omitted if so desired. The rim and invert elevation for manhole 4847-10 shall be shown. SHEETS 2 & 3. Accurately show the size of the existing public sewer line for each pipe segment shown on this sheet. SHEETS 2 & 3. Clearly show the limits of all public sewer easements shown on this sheet. SHEET 3. The existing public sewer does not just end at the intersection of S Palo Verde Road and E Hemisphere Loop. Please show the continuation of the existing public sewer. 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 $150.00 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 |
| 06/20/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 20, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of VZW-Tucson- Development Plan TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 6255 S Palo Verde Road, T15S R14E Sec09, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM and Elizabeth Eberbach, P.E. ACTIVITY: D06-0023 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received, Sheets 1 through 4 of the proposed development plan, the landscape plan, the NPPP plans and the submitted preliminary drainage report. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and preliminary drainage report and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. The preliminary drainage report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow from the proposed roof drainage is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers that are called out in the Key Note #27 on sheet 2 of 4 and 3 of 4 on the proposed development plan. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.2: Revise Figure 6, Developed Conditions, to accurately show the concentration points (CP) with the correct calculated on-site weighted discharge values shown in Appendix A of the proposed drainage report. Specifically CP B1, B2, and B4 need to be revised to reflect the correct discharge values. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.2: Revise Figure 6 to show CP B11. As shown on the proposed Figure 6 B11 is labeled as B8. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide the hydraulic calculation sheets that were used to determine the weir length for the retention basin in Appendix B of the proposed drainage report. Development Plan: 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The correct development plan number (D06-0023) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans where indicated by the "D06-". 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.A.2: Provide an original seal stamped and signed by the registrant for this project, Ryan G. Bale, on all applicable sheets prior to development plan approval. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Depict on the development plan the minimum unobstructed radius of 18-feet for all PAAL intersections that are designated as fire lanes, refuse access, or loading zones. Refer to DS Sec.3-05 for all other vehicular use area design criteria. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.E Provide and label the dimensions for the existing right-of-way for Brittania Drive. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.F: Provide the dimensions and label the future MS&R right-of-way for Palo Verde Road. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Provide on the Development Plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the Development Plan: I. provide the specific PC/COT standard detail for the type of sidewalk scuppers that are used for conveying the roof drainage under the pedestrian sidewalk. The scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk; II. revise the finish floor elevation (FFE) shown on the development plan to accurately reflect the required elevation provided in the submitted drainage report. The finish floor elevation that was calculated in the engineering report is 2624 feet (NAVD88 datum), and the FFE on Sheet 2 of 4 indicates 2623.80. Clarify the discrepancy.. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Revise the development plan so that the 111 foot erosion hazard setback limit shown is readable and not covered up by the property boundary line. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects all public access areas of the proposed building and the proposed circulation path located on Brittania Drive and Hemisphere Loop. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise Keynote # 6 to show the required 5-foot wide sidewalks along Brittania Drive and Hemisphere Loop. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A for all other pedestrian circulation path requirements. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise Keynote #14 to include truncated domes for all proposed handicap access ramps. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Revise the Landscape Plan to show the sight visibility triangles (SVT), as shown on the development plan, for the PAALs new access points. Provide a note on the landscape plan to state no structures and vegetation is allowed within 30" to 72" in height and will not be placed within the sight visibility triangles. Remove any proposed vegetation within the sight visibility triangle areas that obstructs sight visibility. GRADING PLAN: 16) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project due to the cut and fill quantities provided on Sheet 1 of 4 of the development plan. Submit a copy of the grading plan with text upon completion and submittals of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. 17) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the development plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 18) Provide a general note that references the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 19) Prior to grading permit/plan approval the existing drainage channel that was constructed for the master development of Tucson International Gateway Center must be cleared and restored to original conditions as recommended in the proposed drainage report. Provide a note on the development plan stating that the channel well be cleared and restored and that an inspection will be required from the Engineering Division prior to grading plan approval. 20) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised development plan, a revised landscape plan, and a revised drainage report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the development plan, landscape plan, and drainage report reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/20/2006 | 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: D06-0023 VZW-TUCSON/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 6/20/06 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: Provide Legal Description on Sheet 1. Include Subdivision name, Lots, Book and Page. es |
| 06/26/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 06/27/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: June 26, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0023 VZW Tucson: Development Plan(5/30/06) Staff has no comments. |
| 06/30/2006 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0023 VZW - Tucson 6/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Palo Verde (Valencia to Bilby) No 0 11,037 42,760 4 42,760 31,003 4 1,117 Rte 11, 30 min, 0 miles; Express 180, 2 AM, 2 PM trips, 0 miles None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development |
| 07/13/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/26/2006 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/31/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D06-0023 VZW - Tucson Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 07/31/06 DUE DATE: 06/26/06 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 06/25/07. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been assigned the case number D06-0023. 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.B.7 List by each of the case numbers all of the applicable annexation conditions or rezoning conditions for this site. (#C09-82-106 , Development plan required, etc.) Note # 20 indicates the maximum allowed height of 75'. As per the annexation condition for case #C15-88-01 one of the conditions is a building height maximum of 39'. Please revise note. 4. DS 2-05.2.4.A There appears to have been a lot split done in 2004 on the property at the southeast corner of the proposed project. Provide documentation verifying that the lot split was approved by the City of Tucson. A lot combination will be required for all of the parcels involved in the project. Lot combination forms can be obtained at the zoning counter here at DSD. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.B The provided zoning of the adjacent properties is not clearly legible. Please darken and move the adjacent zoning indicators for clarity purposes. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.D The curb radii at the PAAL intersections in several areas through out the project do not meet DS 3-05.2.1.3.a, & .b. (minimum 18' radius at PAAL for fire lanes and 5' radius at all other PAAL intersections). See engineering comments. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.F Indicate with dimensions the existing and future ½ right of way and future curb location for Palo Verde Rd. which is on the MS&R map. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.I Provide all building setback dimensions. If the building setback is greater than the required setback, show only the dimension of the distance to the property line. If the setbacks point of measurement is not the property line, include the distance to the point of measurement. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide an accessible pedestrian circulation path from Brittania Dr. and Hemisphere Loop to the building. Including physically separated (raised) sidewalks, crosswalks, and handicap ramps. See DS 2-08 for requirements. Clearly indicate that the sidewalks connect to the buildings. If there is a canopy or roofed structure of some type over the entrances to the building please indicate such. 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. The sidewalk area in front of the handicap parking spaces appears to be flush with the pavement. A strip of truncated domes 24" in width will be required along the length of the sidewalk where the sidewalk is flush with the pavement. Clearly indicate that the locations of the required handicap parking signs do not limit the width of the sidewalk to less than 4'. Provide a detail of the required handicap parking sign. FYI: The minimum distance between the bottom of the sign and grade is 7'. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.M On the footprint of the building provide dimensions. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.O Indicate maneuverability for vehicles in and out of the furthest south loading zone. 12. DS 2-05.2.4.P Clearly indicate the location of the required wheel stops or barriers for all parking spaces in order to prevent vehicles from overhanging sidewalks and required landscape areas. If the raised sidewalk is to be used as the barrier the minimum width of the sidewalk is then 6'-6". See DS 3-05.2.3.C.1, &.2. It appears that there are 711 parking spaces provided. Revise parking calculation note indicating 704 parking spaces. The required number of handicap parking spaces per IBC Sec. 1106.1 is 2% of the provided number of parking spaces. 2% of 711 parking spaces is 14 required handicap parking spaces not 11 as indicated. Please revise the number of required spaces in the parking calculations. Per the IBC Sec. 1106.5 for every 6 or fraction of accessible parking spaces required, 1 van accessible handicap parking space is required. Indicate the location of van accessible parking spaces on the plans and in the calculations the number of required van accessible parking spaces. (minimum 3 required) 13. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Clearly indicate on the plan the location of all class 1 and class 2 bicycle parking spaces. The area indicated per #24 note does not appear to be large enough for 43 class 1 and 14 class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Provide directional signage for the bicycle parking spaces which are not visible from either street. The note indicating Class 2 parking to be provided in a security area is incorrect, class 2 bicycle parking spaces must be accessible to the public and located near the main entrances to the building. See DS 2-09.4.1, &.2 for location requirements for bicycle parking spaces. See DS 2-09.5.1 for directional signage requirements. See DS 2-09 for all bicycle parking requirements. 14. DS 2-05.2..4.R Show sight visibility triangles along the MS&R (Palo Verde Rd.). See engineering comments. 15. DS 2-05.2.4. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. 16. DS 2-05.2.4.W If applicable, provide location and types of signage. (freestanding, billboards, etc.) If applicable, provide the type and location of any proposed site lighting. Provide a detail of the pole and light fixture. 17. Depending on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments further 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\D06-0023dp.doc |
| 08/02/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 2, 2006 Joe Zeman Engineering and Environmental Consulting, Inc. 4625 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0023 VZW - Tucson Development Plan Dear Joe: Your submittal of May 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 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, ESD, DUPD, Wastewater, Engineering, Addressing, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, 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: 321-0333 |
| 08/02/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | April 28, 2008 Joe Zeman EEC 4625 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, AZ 85712 SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF CDRC FILE Development Plan Per Section 5.3.8.2.A, Expiration Dates, of the Land Use Code, "an applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A development plan application that has been in review for a period of one (1) year which has not been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a development plan for the property, a new development plan which complies with regulations in effect at that time must be submitted. The new submittal initiates a new one (1) year review period." Case # Case Name DSD Transmittal Date D06-0023 VZW Tucson May 30, 2006 Please note that this case has been closed and that, in order to continue review of the project, new development plan/tentative plat application is required which comply with regulations in effect at the time of the new submittals. CDRC members should be advised of their ability to review the new applications per the current regulations. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager xc: CDRC file D06-0023 |