Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D06-0024
Parcel: 14029050A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D06-0024
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/06/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/09/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Based on the proposed expansion the provisions of LUC 3.7 apply to the entire site. Show Lot 41 in it's entirety on the landscape plans and document code compliance by identifying individual plants, screening elements, etc. Existing trees and shrubs may be incorporated in a landscaped area, if their locations do not conflict with the plant location requirements of this Division or Development Standard 2-06.0. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e, LUC 3.7.1.2

2) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

3) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise sheet L1 to comply (lot numbers, phase identifiers). DS 2-05.2.1.A

4) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes in most instances are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet, 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. DS 10-01.4

5) Detail C on DP2 is referred to as a"34 square foot landscape diamond" in key note 7. The area calculates to 33.75 square feet. The minimum area required is 34 square feet. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e, LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c

6) Revise the note on the landscape plan regarding the landscape diamond to correspond with the Development Plan. DS 2-07.2.1

7) Revise the section in Detail C on DP2 to show the planter as depressed for rain water harvesting as indicated in DP General Note 27.

8) Revise the development plan/landscape plan to provide dimensions and square footage for all of the different types of tree planting 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

9) Revise Sheet L-1 to clarify the references to Phase 1 and Phase II. Show any Phase lines in the legend.

10) Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation.
DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b

11) Clarify the note regarding existing landscaping on sheet L3 near the intersection of Hemisphere and Palo Verde. No existing landscape is identified in the vicinity.

12) Turf may not be used or retained in the street landscape borders or in the public right-of-way. LUC 3.7.2.2

13) Revise the landscape plan to provide screening for the vehicular use area along Palo Verde Blvd. LUC Table 3.7.2-1

14) Revise the landscape plan to include landscaping for the retention/detention basins. Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A
Provide a minimum of 20 trees of varying sizes per acre, a minimum of two shrubs for each tree, and appropriate groundcover.

15) 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 of inert material is required. LUC 3.7.2.7. DS 2-06.5.2.C

16) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4. Revise the landscape plan to comply.

17) Revise the landscape border values in the calculations for Palo Verde Blvd. on sheet L1.

18) Ensure that the plant coverage totals for the street landscape borders do not include plants used to meet the screening requirements. DS 2-06.3.7

19) Revise the landscape plan to include the required number of canopy trees (trees having a trunk that, at maturity, is kept clear of leaves and branches at least six (6) feet above grade) in the Palo Verde Blvd. street landscape buffer. LUC 3.7.2.4

20) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include Lot 41. DS 2-15.3.1.A.3

22) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. Although the plan indicates that Lot 42 will be entirely graded, a limit should be established on Lot 41 and at right-of-way lines. DS 2-15.3.4.A

23) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area, provided by water harvesting methods and the drainage off roof areas, amount of flow, and disposition of flow. DS 2-07.2.2.C.5 & 6, LUC 3.7.4.3.B

24) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for submittal requirements. A pre-submittal meeting is required. Once approval is granted, add the file number and approval date to the development plan in the general notes.

25) The notes and calculations on N1 related to the WASH Ordinance should be on the Plant/Habitat Inventory and mitigation plans. TCC 29-15

26) The previously approved plans for Lot 41 include grading limits that appear to have been exceeded at some point. The previous state may be the basis for the WASH review. TCC 29-12. Submit any previously approved WASH/NPPO plans.

27) The site has been modified to include a chain link/razor wire fence at the perimeter within the Rodeo Wash study area. Provide approved plans for the installation. This item may be subject to review with the WASH application. Show the existing fence on the development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A.27

28) Add a note to the development plan stating that the project is designed to meet the
WASH Ordinance criteria. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10

29) Revise the Riparian Habitat Inventory to include all woody vegetation including plants rated non-viable greater than 2" caliper or state on the plan that this was done. Identify the regulatory floodplain.

30) Revise the development plan to include floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, shall be indicated.

31) Where natural floodprone areas, such as washes, channels, drainageways, etc., exist within the development plan boundaries of the drawing, water surface contours for the 100-year flood with water surface elevations
indicated must be shown and clearly labeled. Revise the development plan to included floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, shall be indicated. DS 2-05.2.3.I

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
06/13/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development.
* Access and dumpster service is OK for the shown four single and one double enclosure.
06/14/2006 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

D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center 06/14/06

() 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: July 5, 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 2 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 on General Notes (sheet 1 of 10) that building height is restricted to a maximum height of 39 feet.
06/15/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
06/23/2006 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied June 22, 2006

TO: Tri Miller
Rick Engineering Company

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: Hemisphere Corporate Center
Development Plan – 1st Submittal
D06-0024


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, D06-0024, 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.

This project includes existing building(s) that are likely to have active private sewer lines. The development plan shall show all existing and proposed sewer infrastructure. This includes existing private sewers from the existing building(s) with size labeled next to the sewer line.

SHEET 1. Accurately fill in the blanks for General Note 14.

SHEET 7. Show the size, Pima County plan number and six-digit Pima County manhole number for all public sewer infrastructure shown on this sheet. This includes the two manholes west of manhole 4226-18.

SHEETS 7 & 8. Show the rim and invert elevation for all proposed private cleanouts.

SHEETS 7, 8, 9 & 10. Show all associated public sewer easements protecting the existing public sewer easement, including the associated recording information.

SHEET 8. Show the size, Pima County plan number and six-digit Pima County manhole number for all public sewer infrastructure shown on this sheet. This includes the manholes east of manhole 4226-18.

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 $250.00 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
06/26/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied SUBJECT: HEMISPHERE CORPORATE CENTER
D06-0024

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted June
6, 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 cost associated with the
relocation of any 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, Mike Kaiser at (520)
918-8244 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,


Kathy Clark
Scheduling Coordinator
Design Build

kc
Enclosure
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power Company


Kathy Clark
Scheduling Coordinator
Design/Build
520-918-8271
kclark@tep.com
06/27/2006 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: D06-0024 HEMISPHERE CORPORATE CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: June 26, 2006



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.







jg
07/07/2006 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 7, 2006
SUBJECT: Engineering review of Hemisphere Corporate Center- Development Plan
TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
LOCATION: 6300 S Palo Verde Road, T15S R14E Sec09, Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: D06-0024


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received, Sheets 1 through 10 of the proposed development plan and the submitted drainage report. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and drainage report and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed:


DRAINAGE REPORT:

1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A: Revise the 4th paragraph in the Introduction Section of the drainage report to state that the 100-year developed discharge will be reduced by 15% from the existing discharge and that 5-year threshold retention will be provided. Revise the drainage report to meet the minimum standards for development within a Critical Basin

2) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Provide a minimum of one 15-foot wide vehicular access ramp into both basins for maintenance purposes. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15%. Label the width and slope for both access ramp on plan view. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis.

3) 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 for all buildings are contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers on the proposed development plan.

4) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Revise the drainage report for the offsite watershed so that the Rodeo Wash is reflected as a Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (W.A.S.H.) overlay zone. All work within the W.A.S.H. overlay zone must be approved by the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) department prior to approval of the development plan.

5) Tucson Code Sec 29-15: In addition to the information required in Chapter 26, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the hydrology/hydraulic study shall contain the following elements:

a) The location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to, and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development.

b) Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential.

c) Existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of five hundred (500) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development.

d) The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities.

e) Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed.

f) Groundwater recharge potential at this location.

g) Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location.

h) Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site.

i) Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site.

6) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.2: Revise the Offsite Hydrology table, Page 5, of the drainage report to accurately show the TSMS Q100 discharge value of 332 cfs. Verify that the correct 332 cfs is used throughout the rest of the drainage report were applicable

7) DS Sec.10-02.9.4.1: Provide energy dissipaters at the existing culvert outlets under Palo Verde Road or provide a statement and calculations showing that protective measures are not required. Refer to DS Sec.10-02.9.3.3.1 for rock riprap sizing requirements and specifications.

8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: A Geotechnical Report is required for this project due to the proposed basins. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, pavement design section, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales, and provide infiltration test results. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the development plan and drainage report.

9) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.E: Provide hydraulic cross sections for the proposed channel showing water surface elevations with the linear distance between the water surface contour intervals no more than 200 feet apart. Verify that the water surface elevations submitted on the proposed development plan match the hydraulic information that is calculated within the drainage report.

10) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Final channel design must be submitted for review and approved by Engineering Division prior to the development plan approval. Provide Hydrology and hydraulic information with all pertinent details for channel design.


Development Plan:

11) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The correct development plan number (D06-0024) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans where indicated by the "D06-".

12) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Revise the development plan to reflect the Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (W.A.S.H.) overlay zone. The southern portion of Lot 41 is affected by the W.A.S.H. ordinance associated with Rodeo Wash. The overlay zone must be approved prior to development plan approval. Please contact CDRC or Patricia Gehlen for further questions regarding the application for the W.A.S.H. overlay zone.

13) The proposed parking lot area within the 50' W.A.S.H. overlay zone is not approved at this time until further review and approval by CDRC.

14) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.F: Revise the development plan to show the existing culverts under Palo Verde Road and the existing PAAL off of Hemisphere Loop. Provide a detail for the existing culverts under Palo Verde Road to show how the culverts will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed drainage channel to protect the channel from erosion.

15) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Revise the development plan, or place a general note on Sheet 1,to reference that the Rodeo Wash FEMA Zone A Floodplain is contained within the channel as shown on the FEMA FIRM Panel 2243K.

16) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.2: Revise development plan to reflect water surface elevations within the proposed channel that will be provided in the revised drainage report. The submitted drainage report does not show the water surface elevations that are labeled on the development plan

17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan to show that all parking spaces located adjacent to all proposed landscape diamonds have the minimum standard parking space size of 8'-6" X 18'. For the parking spaces adjacent to the landscape diamonds within the PAALs show the minimum standard parking space size or label the wheel stop curbing with distances, refer to Fig 5 DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.2.

18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Provide the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the site plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii.

19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.F: Provide the dimensions and label the future MS&R right-of-way for Palo Verde Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets are required to be 6-foot wide. Label the proposed sidewalk to be constructed as 6-foot.

20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Revise the development plan and details to show that the detention basins and channel are private.

21) 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:

a) 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;

b) revise the development plan to show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within both proposed basins and the proposed channel. The water surface elevations shown on the development plan must be verified within the revised drainage report.

c) Provide details for the spillways that are shown on the development plan that are proposed to be constructed within the Rodeo Wash. All work within the Rodeo Wash must comply with the W.A.S.H. overlay ordinance and must have a right-of-way use permit before construction.

22) 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 Hemisphere Loop.

23) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.B.5: Revise the typical handicap and standard parking space detail, A-2, to show that the minimum sidewalk distance is 5', not the 4' that is labeled.

24) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise keynote # 29 on Sheets 3-10 to show the required 345-foot near side length for the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT) along Palo Verde Road, revise the SVT. Refer to DS Sec3-01.5.1 for SVT procedures and criteria. Also provide a landscape plan to reflect the SVT shown on the development plan.

25) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Provide a Landscape Plan to show the SVT, as shown on the development plan. 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 SVT. Remove any proposed vegetation within the SVT areas that obstructs sight visibility.

26) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Revise the detail dimensions for refuse containers, the enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between bollards that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction.

27) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Show maneuverability for all refuse containers for the refuse vehicles in plan view.

28) Tucson Code Sec 26-5.2.4: The proposed development can not unnecessarily alter the Xeroriparian habit that is located on the northern portion of Lot 42. Review and approval of disturbance and mitigation is required by the Lanscaping Department prior to development plan approval

29) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on the site plan for grading plan purposes.


GRADING PLAN:

30) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may be required for this project depending on the cut and fill quantities provided at resubmittal. If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards a grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after development plan approval and prior to any construction activity. 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 development plans

31) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the development plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

32) 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.

33) If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards provide a general note on the development plan that references the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

34) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to basin.

b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development.

c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes.

d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised development plan, a revised drainage report, a landscape plan, and a geotechnical 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, drainage report, landscape plan, and geotechnical 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
07/07/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No comment
07/07/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied July 6, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0024
PROJECT NAME: Hemisphere Corporate Center
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3350 E Hemisphere Lp
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Development Plan

The following items must be revised or added to the plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Due to the number of proposed trips (exceeding 100 peak hour trips) a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be required to address the possible improvement needs along Palo Verde Road.

3. The SVTs appear to be mislabeled on sheets 3 and 4.

4. Callout the existing curb returns radius along the existing driveways. Due to the increase in trips all access points shall have a minimum 18" radius return.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
07/20/2006 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
D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center 6/30/2006
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 Rd (Valencia to Drexel)
No 0
11,037
42,760
4
42,760
31,002
4
4,533
Rte 11, 30 min, 0 miles; Express 180, 2
AM, 2 PM trips, 0 miles
None
Valencia (Palo Verde to Country
Club)
No 0
34,192
64,140
6
70,929
64,140
6
Rte 11, 30 min, 0 miles; Express 180, 2
AM, 2 PM trips, 0 miles
Bike route with striped shoulder
9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development
07/21/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
07/21/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
07/24/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: July 24, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov

CC:


SUBJECT: D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center: Development Plan(6/06/06)

Staff has no comments.
07/26/2006 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
08/07/2006 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: D06-0024
Hemisphere Corporate Center
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 08/07/06

DUE DATE: 07/05/06

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 07/04/07.

2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been assigned the case number D06-0024. 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 This property is subject to the annexation requirements of case number C15-88-01. List the case number on the plans, preferably in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. Provide any conditions of the annexation that are applicable to this project on the plan (Development Plan required, height restrictions, etc.). A copy of the annexation zoning ordinance #7090 for case # C15-88-01 can be obtained at the zoning counter here at DSD.

4. DS 2-05.2.4.A This project appears to have two separate parcels of land. If the project is to operate as one development a lot combination will be required or a cross access, cross parking and cross pedestrian circulation agreement will be required. Forms for the lot combination can be obtained here at the zoning counter. Completed lot combination documentation must be provided at next submittal. If a cross access agreement is to be provided, provide docket and page recordation information on the plans as well as a copy of the agreement at next submittal.

5. DS 2-05.2.4.B Indicate on the drawing the existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right of way)

6. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 The curb radii at PAAL intersections do not appear to meet the minimum requirements of DS 3-05.2.1.C.3.a, & .b. Minimum of 5' radius at all PAAL intersections which are not being used as fire lanes. See engineering comments.

7. DS 2-05.2.4.I In the parking calculations on page one, note #3, clearly indicate the required setback adjacent to I1 zoning as being 0' and indicate the setback being provided in the calculations or provide dimensions on the plan.

8. DS 2-05.2.4.K A pedestrian circulation path will be required to be provided from Palo Verde Rd to the new structures. See DS 2-08.3.1

Pedestrian circulation path is required to be provided to all refuse container areas (dumpsters). See DS 2-08.3.1

Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to raised 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. (at all islands with cross walks, at handicap parking spaces where sidewalk is flush with pavement, along any area where sidewalk is adjacent to and flush with the pavement with out a curb) Revise plan as well as detail A on 2 of 10.

Handicap ramps are missing from several areas where transitioning from cross walks to the sidewalk areas.

Clearly indicate the required physical separation for sidewalks in several areas: The main entrances to buildings 2,3 & 4 (no curbs, barriers or handicap ramps are indicated)

Clarify key note #2 which indicates a 5' sidewalk and the plans indicating a dimensioned sidewalk width of 7'. Note the minimum width of a sidewalk adjacent to parking spacing with out wheel stops is 6'-6".

9. DS 2-05.2.4.N In the parking calculations portion on page 1 revise the allowed building height from 75' to 39' as per annexation conditions, revise the proposed building height to comply with the maximum 39' requirement.

10. DS 2-05.2.4.O Clearly indicate the location of all loading zones including the loading zones for the existing structure.

Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2, loading zones are required for each building based on the use of each building. The required number of loading zones indicated on page 1 in the parking calculations as 5 will need to be revised to 9.
Clearly indicate maneuverability for vehicles in and out of the loading zones. See engineering comments.

11. DS 2-05.2.4.P The 15'-6" long parking spaces located along north and east perimeter of the property will not meet the minimum length of a parking space with the triangular curbs extending into the parking space. Remove the triangular curb or redesign the parking spaces affected.

Per the site plan submitted for the existing structure there appears to be 315 parking spaces existing not 327 as parking calculations indicate. Revise calculations and provide the required number of parking spaces.

48 handicap-parking spaces are being provided therefore as per IBC Sec. 1106.5 for every six (6) handicap parking spaces or fraction thereof provided, 1 van accessible parking space is required. A total of 8 van accessible parking spaces are required. Revise calculations and clearly indicate the location of the required van accessible parking spaces.

In the detail for the handicap parking signage (Detail A on 2 of 10), clearly indicate the height of the bottom of the sign from grade. (minimum seven (7) feet)

12. DS 2-05.2.4.Q The class 2 bicycle parking spaces are to be located in close proximity to the main entrances to the buildings as per DS 2-09.4.1.

Provide a detail of the class 1 and class 2 bicycle parking racks. The class 1 bicycle parking racks are to be a covered type of enclosure which protects from sunlight and theft. The description of the class one spaces in detail B on 2 of 10 does not meet the above requirement. See DS 2-09.2.2.A. and DS 2-09.6.5

Provide a detail of the proposed lighting for the bicycle parking spaces. It is unclear as to what a building side pole light is.

Provide location of directional signage for bicycle parking spaces which are not visible from public right of ways. See DS 2-09.5.1

13. DS 2-05.2.4.W As per note #18, clearly indicate the location of the proposed monument sign, as well as the location of any other existing or proposed signs including billboards.

14. DS 2-052.4.V Per General Note #28 mail delivery will be provided by a mail box receptacle. Provide the location of the mail box receptacle.

15. 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\D06-0024dp.doc
08/08/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

August 8, 2006

Tri Miller
Rick Engineering Company
1745 East River Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Subject: D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center Development Plan

Dear Tri:

Your submittal of June 6, 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, Traffic, TEP, DUPD, Wastewater, Engineering, 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)

2 Copies Geotechnical 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: 322-6956