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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0032
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/30/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#166751 March 29, 2007 Dear Mr. Hunt: SUBJECT: FIRST MAGNUS NATIONAL BANK D06-0032 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 28, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the 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. Any relocation costs will be billable to the developer. 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 Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (Email) N. DiMaria, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/18/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Striping along Calle La Paz is required, but can be reflected on the grading plan and/or any required PIA's. |
| 04/18/2007 | 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 D06-0032 First Magnus National Office () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-84-25, and at a future date to be determined by DSD, shall comply with C9-06-24 Alta Vista Communities – Kolb Rd, prior to Cert. Of Occupany NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY : Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: April 18, 2007 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 () Proposal Complies with 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 (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: April 16, 2007 Department of Urban Planning & Design Comments D06-0032 – First Magnus National Office April 16, 2007 Staff offers the following comments: Staff’s following comments, enumerated 2 through 13 are in response to rezoning case C9-84-25 conditions. However, as of this review, the applicant has filed for consideration of a zoning change from O-3 to OCR-1, under rezoning case C9-06-24. Applicant has two options: 1.a.), Comply fully with C9-84-25 conditions as listed below or; 1.b), Approval of this review (development plan) shall exclude a certificate of occupancy on the use of the building until such time as rezoning C9-06-24 is approved, followed by a resubmittal that fully complies with C9-06-24, prior to a certificate of occupancy issuance. Please revise development plan, sheet 1of 7 to include in the rezoning heading the following information: CONDITIONS OF REZONING TO C9-84-25 The listed conditions of rezoning do not seem to match C9-84-25, a change of conditions document known as attachment G. Attachment G provides deleted and new rezoning conditions. Please revise DP; sheet 1of7 to include the correct language on rezoning condition #1. E which needs to read: Construction of right turn/deceleration lanes on Kolb Road at all access point to the site and at Calle La Paz. Please revise DP, sheet 1of7, rezoning conditions to include condition #1.G, which reads: Removal of any existing curb returns that will not be used; these to be replaced with standard curbing. Please revise DP, sheet 1of7, to include rezoning condition # 2.8, which reads: Unsightly and noise-generating elements on the office portion of this development, including the trash containers and trash collection area, and loading zones, shall be located way from the adjacent residential buildings to the south, which are also part of this development. Please revise DP, sheet 1of 7 (site plan) to include the office complex development plan (site plan) of the adjacent office complex to the east, to document compliance with rezoning C9-84-25, condition # 1.a, which reads: Vehicular and pedestrian cross-access between the on-site office development and the office development to the east shall be provided. The development plan submitted for this project shall demonstrate vehicular and pedestrian cross-access with the office development to the east. Please revise DP, sheet 1of7 (site plan) to demonstrate a cross-access with the adjoining residences in “The Meadows,” via Placita La Paz, for compliance with rezoning condition # 1.b, which reads: Provisions of vehicular cross-access to the adjoining residences in The Meadows via Placita La Paz shall be demonstrated as part of the development plan submittal. The cross-access must be clearly shown and labeled on the development plan, and a copy of the agreement or recording information must be provided prior to final development plan approval. Please revise DP, sheet 5of7 to include two additional keynotes, keynote #28, to state in some fashion that there will an on-site traffic sign located at the Kolb Road exit point that directs on-site traffic existing onto Kolb Road, as a right-turn exit only. Keynote # 29, to state in some fashion that there will be an on-site site located at the Kolb Road exit point that shows traffic on Kolb Road that this exit point prohibits access onto the office complex. Please revise DP, sheet 6of7, and landscape plan sheet 2of5, to comply with rezoning condition # 1.d., which reads: A six foot masonry wall including a five-foot landscape buffer along Camino Serna and along the western and southern property line of the proposed office development. Current submittal, DP, sheet 6of7 shows a 42-inch tall screen wall along the western property line and LP, sheet 2of5 indicates no wall. Please revise DP and LP to be in compliance with rezoning condition # 8, which reads: Unsightly and noise-generating elements on the office portion of this development, including the trash containers and trash collection area, and loading zonings, shall be located away from the adjacent residential building to the south, which are also part of this development. Current submittal has the loading zone, trash enclosure, and trash containers located in the vicinity of the south property line area where the condition states to locate these uses away from the adjacent residential development to the south. Please revise DP to comply with rezoning condition # 9, which reads: All buildings within 100 feet of the south property line of the southern portion of this development shall be a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) in height, as measured from finished grade. Current submittal shows portions of the proposed office building located within 100 feet from the south property line at a building height of forty-feet (49’). 11. Please revise DP submittal to comply with rezoning conditions # 13, 14, and 17. These three rezoning condition are related in that many of the required revisions to the DP and LP overlap but satisfy different issues on the same details, an example is rezoning condition 13, which reads: All buildings and landscaping shall be designed to be architecturally consistent with each other, and with the surrounding development. Compatibility shall be demonstrated for such elements as architectural design, materials, colors, screen walls, and rooflines, screen walls, sighs, and lighting. Dimensioned elevation drawings are to be submitted as part of the development plan. Current submittal does not include any color material documentation, illustrations, or elevations, on the proposed development or on the adjacent existing developments to show compatibility, level of architectural integrity, and to show compliance with rezoning conditions #13 and 14. 12. Please revise DP to be in compliance with rezoning condition # 15, which reads: Free-standing signs shall be architecturally consistent with the overall development, and shall be integrated into the overall landscape plan. Sign details are to be provided as part of the development plan. Current submittal includes no documentation or information to show compliance with rezoning condition # 15. 13. Please provide documentation that $5,000.00 dollars have been contributed toward the development of the Pantano River trail, as a requirement to be in compliance with rezoning condition # 31. |
| 04/23/2007 | WILLDAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Passed | See comments under Zoning Folder. |
| 04/23/2007 | WILDAN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | See comments under Zoning Folder. |
| 04/23/2007 | WILDAN | ZONING | REVIEW | Passed | April 6, 2007 EEC 4625 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, AZ 85712 RE: First Magnus Bank Development Plan CITY OF TUCSON LOG NO. D06-0032 WILLDAN PROJECT NO. 13890-7218 – 1ST REVIEW The initial review for the above project has been completed. This letter contains comments which need to be addressed by written responses to each which indicate any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter second review, all corrections and revisions indicated on the original plans must be made and two complete new sets of prints, along with one complete redlined set, must be returned to our office. To avoid delays, ensure that all corrections have been made, are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable detail and note sheets. Pen or pencil corrections on final prints are not acceptable. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the City of Tucson Land Use Code 1995 and the City of Tucson Development Standards 2000 as amended and supplemented. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. Should you have questions regarding the comments herein, please contact your plans examiners, David Williams, Zoning/Landscape and David Gue, Engineering. Zoning Site Area Building Area S.F. Overlays Use 0-3 243 AZ 33,338 MS & R GCZ Office The following items are acceptable for deferred submittals: N/A GENERAL COMMENTS: This development plan is the subject of an ongoing rezoning case. It is going through this review process with the intent of obtaining a shell permit to begin construction. Upon zoning approval, appropriate revisions will be made and a re-review completed. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: A Permit or Private Improvement Agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for Permit Information. There is no evidence on the plans that this matter has been addressed. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Sheet 4 Note: Connect 4” PVC storm drain to the existing catch basin. Provide a detail for this connection; call out to core drill or breakout opening in the catch basin wall; the required sealing, and call out the invert for 4” PVC. Note: 28 LF 4” PVC sewer connection, S = 27.8%. Correct PVT to PVC; the slope shown as 27.8% can be greatly reduced by raising invert of the 4” PVC at the new manhole. Note: Storm drain MH – access to HDPE detention pipes. Provide a detail for this connection. Note: New MH #1 – Provide a detail for the construction of new manhole around the existing sewer and show forming of base in the manhole. Note: Connect gas line. Will the contractor make this connection or the gas company? Provide required documents for the new 20’ X 15’ public water easement. Note: Storm drain MH w/goulds ¾” pump. Provide detail of this manhole showing pump installation. Provide inverts for all proposed storm drain connections. (See locations on redlines.) Indicate if the tees and valves (3) for the fire hydrant, 2 ½” water, and 6-inch PVC fire service are existing. If new, add keynote. Sheet 5 Identify the manholes for the 60” DIA pipes and pump manhole per Sheet 4. Indicate radius for all islands. If typical, so state. Add Note: See detail at upper right. Sheet 6 Add elevations at all centerline intersections of PAAL’S. Provide details for pavement marking. Proposed catch basin at pavement elevation 13.80. What is the disposition of the runoff from this C.B.? Show the connection. Provide details for the catch basin; size, Standard Detail, rim elevation, inverts, etc. Keynote (29) - The 24” HDPE storm drain is not shown on Sheet 4 or mentioned in the Drainage Report. Provide details – location, flows, velocity, manholes locations, headwalls, end treatment, rip-rap, etc. Culvert with invert = 13.50. Is this existing or proposed? Identify a standard detail for the sidewalk scupper or provide a detail. Provide inverts for all proposed storm drain systems. A separate sheet may be advisable for a clear presentation. Identify a standard detail for all proposed entrance driveways. Keynote (24) - Verify that a 6-inch opening is adequate for the design flow at these locations and indicate the disposition of the flow from these openings. Will there be any pavement marking on the PAAL’S (Directional Traffic Arrows), or at the entrances/exits on Calle La Paz? Sheet 7 We suggest adding top of curb and flow line elevations where applicable. DRAINAGE REPORT: Page 10 Provide written documentation granting permission to discharge into the existing curb inlet catch basin along the south curb of Kolb Road. Provide calculations supporting the pump and force main sizes, capable of draining the underground retention pipes within the required 12 hour drain time. What provisions, if any, have been made for the possible failure of the pump to operate efficiently, or even at total shutdown? Inspections for this system should be at more frequent intervals to insure that it is fully operational. Page 11 Summary 6-5 - The implication given is that the retention structure is one (1) underground pipe, 5-feet in diameter, 300 feet in length. Suggest clarification be made to clearly describe the retention system. It is suggested that written documentation be provided verifying that the required drain time for the underground retention system is 12 hours, not 4 hours as stated in First Review Comment – Drainage Report – Item 3 EEC letter dated, March 20, 2007. The report doesn’t include a discussion of or design for the proposed 24” HDPE Storm Drain shown on the Grading Plan. ZONING COMMENTS: General Future curb locations along Kolb appear to be shown correctly; however, the future sidewalk location is incorrect (shown in the roadway) in the area of the street intersection. DS 2-05.2.4.F. Other information in this area is difficult to read. A detail or enlargement is suggested. The 60’ BSL appears to be incorrect. Add all required perimeter yards to the development plan including the required street-side perimeter yard. We suggest incorporating the unused parking lot area (highlighted on the Water Feature Detail), adjacent to the pedestrian areas at the north corner of the site, into the adjacent parking stalls, pedestrian areas, landscaping or combination thereof. As configured, enough room exists to entice unintended vehicle use of these areas. Further, pedestrian use of the water feature area would be enhanced with the addition of seating and/or other street furniture. Clarify the location and required 5 foot ‘clear area’ around the Class 2 bike parking (bike rack). The Class 2 bike parking detail (E/2; Sheet 2) is unclear and should be revised to show the required number of spaces, approved or similar bike rack, and clear areas. Ensure the correct number of Class 1 and Class 2 spaces are provided. Sheet 1 Provide calculations for HC parking. Add a call out for the parking overhang along the west side of the site. Sheet 4 Add centerline or other information for the 24’ sewer access easement. Sheet 5 Identify/label the use of the accessory building located along the south property line. Correct labeling on the bike parking Class 1 and Class 2. Community Planning Comments: A follow-up, revised plan will be required once the rezoning request is completed. Zoning and related notes will need to be updated to reflect the approved zone and all applicable rezoning conditions. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: General Documentation of the approval of encroachment for landscaping in the right-of-way by Andy Dinauer has not been received. Sheet 1 Add street names. Correct the total number of parking spaces to match the Development Plan (156). The turf area southeast of the building has been omitted from the oasis calculations. Turf in this area does not meet LUC criteria for an oasis area. Revise the landscape plan accordingly. We suggest revising the note on the planting schedule to show the value of the existing Blue Palo Verde and the tree mitigation calculations (see redlines). LANDSCAPE PLAN (Sheets 2 and 3): We suggest adding the calculations per the redlines, confirming the water feature is in compliance. LUC 3.7.4.4.A.1. Add street names. The landscape plan includes a number keynotes that are not represented on the plan. Consider deleting the unused keynotes. Revise the screen wall detail to place the required dimension on the development side of the wall of the east property line has no screen wall. Please revise. Provide the joint use agreement. IRRIGATION PLAN (Sheets 4 and 5): In accordance with DS 2-05.2.1.A, revise the irrigation plan to increase lettering size to the 12 point minimum in the areas of the turf islands. Add street names. Unable to locate the landscape meter position, or source of supply and backflow device for the irrigation system. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Page 9 Retention/detention basins – This section appears to be directed toward retention/detention basins, on-grade construction, with soil infiltration to satisfy the drain time requirements. The report should be revised to address the proposed underground retention system. GRADING COMMENTS: Incorporated in Engineering Comments on Sheets 6 and 7. Sincerely, WILLDAN David P. Gue, P.E. City Engineer DPG/tb cc: Jessie Sanders, C.O.T. F:\Tucson Office\13890\2007\7218tuc01.07.doc |
| 05/08/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 8, 2007 To: Craig A. Hunt, P.E. Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department Subject: First Magnus Office Building Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-032 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the both the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantaño Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until this office has received a copy of this letter. You are proposing, as part of this project, to connect the proposed sewer line into the public sewer G-2004-027. However, the construction of this public sewer G-2004-027 has never been formally competed and accepted for service by the PCWMD or ADEQ. This project D06-032 will not be approved until G-2004-027 is accepted for service by ADEQ. We are aware that the construction of the G-2004-027 sewer line was substantially completed in 2005, and that the unauthorized use of this sewer has started since May of 2005. The efforts to formalize the acceptance, without enforcement action, of this sewer line by the PCWMD were started in November 2006. However, no appreciable progress has been made so far. 3. Sheet 5: As stated above, the sewer relocation/improvement plan, G-2004-027, has not been approved by PCWMD or accepted by ADEQ. Existing sewer elements, manholes, pipes, cleanouts and easements, from previous sewer plan S-425 and sewer improvement plan number G-2004-027, need to be shown on this project. Revise the site plan so that it shows: Existing sewer elements from sewer improvement plan S-425 and label them appropriately as being abandoned, released or removed by plan number G-2004-027. Display the existing, proposed public and proposed private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. Proposed public sewer elements from plan number G-2004-027. Include the two easements recorded under Dkt 12321 Pg 644 and Dkt 12321 Pg 973. Also, label the manholes with the numbers as they appear on these plans. 4. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the third submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $117.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. (520-740-6563) CC: Project File |
| 05/09/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 9, 2007 Craig Hunt Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4625 East Ft. Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0032 First Magnus National Bank Office Building Development Plan Dear Craig: Your submittal of March 20, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 3 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, DUPD, DSD ) 2 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, DSD ) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENGINEERING, ZONING, AND LANDSCAPE REVIEWS ARE GOING THIRD PARTY REVIEW (WILDAN). THE ABOVE RESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE ITEMS NEEDED FOR THOSE REVIEWS. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 321-0333 dp-resubmittal |