Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0024
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/23/2006 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: HEMISPHERE CORPORATE CENTER D06-0024 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 18, 2006. As you are aware there are existing TEP facilities that serve Building 1. No easement was found for the facilities. If other buildings will be served off of these facilities, TEP will require that an easement be surveyed and tied down. 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. Your final plans should be sent to: Mike Kaiser Design/Build - DB 102 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 10/31/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center 10/30/06 () 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: November 16, 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( X ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 6/14/06 ( X ) No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Elevations and Color Palette REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 10/30/06 |
| 11/02/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: D06-0024 Hemisphere Corporate Center Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: November 2, 2006 DUE DATE: November 16, 2006 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 2-05.2.4.A, Based on your response to comments 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. 3. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide a letter from Walter Tellez in regards to the required pedestrian circulation path to be provided from Palo Verde Rd to the new structures. See DS 2-08.3.1 4. DS 2-05.2.4.K This comment has not been fully addressed. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) shall be 24 inches minimum in the direction of travel and EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP OR FLUSH SURFACE. Detail A sheet 2 of 10 does not show the truncated domes correctly. The truncated domes should run the full width where the depressed curb is flush with the pavement. 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. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.K Sheet 3 of 10, are the handicapped ramps shown at the south and east sides of building 1 new or existing? Indicated new or existing. These ramps require Detectable Warnings (truncated domes). 6. DS 2-05.2.4.K Keynote 17 calls out "5' WIDE CONCRETE PEDETRIAN CROSSWALK (TYP)", if these concrete crosswalks are flush with the pavement then at each intersection of the crosswalk and PAAL Detectable Warnings (truncated domes) are required. 7. This comment has not been addressed. It appears that there are bollards or some type of barrier shown indicate what type it is. If the concrete is flush with the pavement then Detectable Warnings (truncated domes) are required. 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) 8. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2 loading zones are required for each building based on the use of each building. Revise the loading zone required number to read 9 not 5. 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. 9. This comment has not been addressed. Per detail B sheet 2 of 10 "NOTE: LIGHTING FOR BICYCLE PARKING AREA WILL BE PROVIDED BY BUILDING SIDE POLE LIGHTS". What is a "BUILDING SIDE POLE LIGHT"? Provide a detail of the proposed lighting for the bicycle parking spaces. It is unclear as to what a building side pole light is. 10. This comment has not been addressed. Per D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q the location and type of directional signage will be shown on the development plan. Provide location of directional signage for bicycle parking spaces which are not visible from public right of ways. See DS 2-09.5.1 11. This comment has not been addressed. Zoning was unable to locate keynote #18 on the Development plan. It appears that there is a sign located on the east side of the PAAL off of Hemisphere Lp., if this is a sign it cannot not be located with in the SVT. 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. 12. This development can not be approved until the Wash Overlay Zone review has been approved. 13. 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 contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. SHS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0024dp-2nd.doc |
| 11/07/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | |
| 11/13/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape border calculations for Palo Verde Blvd. on sheet L1. The landscape border area exceeds 860 SF. 2) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required prior to development plan approval. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for submittal requirements. If approval is granted, add the file number and approval date to the development plan in the general notes. 3) 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 4) Revise the Riparian Habitat Inventory to include all woody vegetation including plants within the regulatory floodplain. delineate and identify the floodplain on the Riparian Habitat aerial photo. 5) 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. 6) 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 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. DS 2-05.2.3.I 7) Basin slopes 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 It appears that Basin A does not comply with the Development Standard. Revise the plan to comply or obtain a Development Standard Modification per DS 1-01.4.7. 8) Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to show the phases represented on the development plan and to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. DS 2-05.2.4.C 9) Add related previous case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 10) Revise the landscape plan note that states"-planter to be 34 SF min./4'min. side". Based on the design, the sides would much greater than four feet. The code requirement is for an unpaved planting area a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 11/16/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | November 16, 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. This plat will not be approved until Traffic is in receipt of the required TIA. Traffic will accept a TIA as a separate submittal as stated in the response to comments, and if off-site improvements are required they can be identified in the next submittal. 2. If off-site improvements are required then a permit or a private improvement agreement may be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-Way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/29/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 29, 2006 SUBJECT: Hemisphere Corporate Center Development Plan-2nd Engineering Review 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 revised proposed development plan and landscape plan. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: Development Plan: 1) 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 of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Report through CDRC. The development plan will not be approved until approval of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Report. 2) Tucson Code Sec 26-5.2.4: It is acknowledge that a Landscape Plan is in for review through the Landscape Review Section. Until an approved landscape plan is submitted the proposed development can not unnecessarily alter the Xeroriparian habit that is located on the northern portion of Lot 42. 3) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: At the grading plan stage it will be required to show how the proposed 15-foot wide vehicular access ramps into both basins comply with the vehicular use area requirements. Removable post barricades will need to be used in lieu of wheel stop curbing to allow for the minimum parking stall design if the access ramp is placed adjacent to parking stalls. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.F: Revise the development plan to provide a detail for the transition of the existing concrete box culverts under Palo Verde Road and the proposed constructed channel to protect the drainage infrastructure from erosion. The details must match the requirements within the drainage report. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Revise General Note #30 on the development plan to clarify that the Rodeo Wash FEMA Zone A Floodplain is contained within the channel as shown on the FEMA FIRM Panel 2243K. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Provide labeled dimension for all radii on the maneuvering area shown on the development plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.F: Provide condition for the existing 4-foot wide sidewalk along Palo Verde Road. If the existing sidewalk is deteriorated or missing then it must be re-constructed to the required 6-foot wide width. Per the adopted Mayor and Council policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets are required to be 6-foot wide. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Provide or clearly show a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects all public access areas of the proposed building and the proposed circulation path located at the revised ingress/egress on Hemisphere Loop. Specifically look at access from the northwest area near Building 2 to Hemisphere Loop. It is acknowledged that the developer will provide a letter from Walter Tellez to eliminate the pedestrian circulation connection to Palo Verde. 9) DS Sec.11-01.2.1 & 2-02.2.1.A.17: Add a General Note to the development plan stating that a grading permit is required for this project. DRAINAGE REPORT: 10) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.1 & 10-01.2.1 (Critical Basin): 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. The introduction paragraph states that "to address the critical basin requirements, the 100-year developed discharge will be reduced at least 10% from the existing 100-year discharge." This statement is not in conformance with the City of Tucson Development Standards for development within a Critical Basin. 11) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.B.1-3: Revise the drainage report to meet the minimum standards for development within a Critical Basin. On Page 7, Section C, Onsite Runoff for existing and Developed Conditions, with Retention Table shows that the 2- and 10-year flow events are not reduced by the required 15%. Development within a critical basin must provide a 15% reduction in the developed conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year flow events relative to the existing conditions. Revise the calculation, design layout and tables to show that these requirements have been met. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Revise the introduction section of 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. It is acknowledge that a W.A.S.H. Ordinance Report has been submitted for review through CDRC, however the drainage report for this development plan must state that the Rodeo Wash is a W.A.S.H. Overlay zone. 13) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.2: Revise the typographical error in the Offsite Hydrology table, Page 5, of the drainage report to accurately show the TSMS Q100 discharge value of 332 cfs. 14) DS Sec.10-02.5.3.2: Provide a back-water flow depth analysis for the proposed channel. The normal-depth rating used to evaluate the channel design does not take into account the sudden changes (90 degree bends) in the proposed channel design. Provide for the additional energy losses, which are not accounted for in the Manning's equation. Verify that the water surface elevations submitted on the proposed development plan match the hydraulic information that is calculated within the drainage report. 15) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Given the proposed restricted space for the northwest drainage realignment channel design is required at the development plan stage to provide for verification that the proposed channel has the design capacity and design area within the project boundary for the 100-year flow event. Hydraulic calculation sheets for the channel system and for both 90 degree bends used to collect the offsite flow must be presented in a drainage report with scour analysis, super-elevation calculations, and/or any proposed cut-off walls. Refer to DS 10-02.8.5 for constructed open-channel design requirements. 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. 16) DS Sec.10-02.9.4.1: It is acknowledged that the existing concrete box culverts are within the Public right-of-way of Palo Verde Road as stated in the response letter, however design and details for the channel transition is required to show how the offsite flow is collected and contained within the proposed channel. Therefore, erosion protection must be addressed at the transition of the proposed channel and at the channel bend. Provide calculations and design requirements for the 90-degree bend, super-elevation, scour analysis and any proposed cut-off walls or rock riprap. Refer to DS Sec.10-02.9.3.3.1 for rock riprap sizing requirements and specifications. 17) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: A Geotechnical Report is required for this project to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project and to provide percolation rates for the proposed retention basins. Geotechnical recommendations need to be incorporated into the drainage report and development plan. a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6 regarding a 30-foot boring for basin, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to basins or constructed channels. 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) Infiltration tests are required for the proposed retention basins due to the conditions shown on the development plan. Provide infiltration test or redesign and authorization for the following. I. Due to continued field inspection issues with long, 0.5% sloped basins infiltration test are required for Basin A due to the 0.5% slope along the basin bottom, or a redesign of the basin is required to provide for a greater slope to allow water to drain to the bleed pipe. II. Basin B shows a bleed pipe that drains the basin to the offsite Rodeo Wash. Infiltration tests are required for Basin B unless the bleed pipe and the W.A.S.H. Overlay Report is approved by all departments, property owners and the Community Design Review Committee. Provide a copy of notarized authorization documentation for any offsite drainage improvements. III. If all items are satisfied and the bleed pipes are used, a routing calculation with the drainage report is required to show that both basins drain within the maximum disposal times per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3. Provide a statement in the drainage report regarding drain down time and design for both basins. GENERAL COMMENTS: A bound Geotechnical Report is required prior to or at the resubmittal of the development plan. The development plan will not be accepted for review through CDRC until a Geotechnical Report is submitted. Provide a revised development plan, a revised drainage report, an approved 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. A meeting is requested prior to resubmittal call me at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/30/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 30, 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 October 18, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Traffic, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Zoning Administrator Letter (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic, 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 |