Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0001
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/03/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 2, 2007 To: Eduardo Ornelas E.J. Ornelas & Associates Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) Subject: Elliot Electronic Supply Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D07-001 The drawings for the proposed Development Plan 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. 1. Provide a letter from PCWMD Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that the 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 4. SHEET 1. In the Legend, show symbols for existing public sewer with manhole. This is the 2nd request. 6. SHEET 1. Show the slope and length of the proposed BCS. This is the 2nd request. 7. SHEET 1. Show the rim and invert elevations of the proposed COs. This is the 2nd request. 9. SHEET 1. Show the information pertaining to the point of connection of the new 4-inch sewer line to an existing sewer line. If the existing sewer is a public sewer, label it as such, and show the Pima County plan number for this sewer with its size and slope, and show the necessary information about the existing manholes ( IMS number& rim and invert elevations) located immediately upstream and downstream of the planned connection point of the new sewer line. This is the 2nd request. 11. SHEET 1. Use different line types for existing and proposed sewers. This is 2nd request. 12. 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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $38.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and the 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 comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tom Porter Telephone: (520) 740-6579 Copy: Project File |
| 07/17/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D07-0001 ELLIOT ELECTRONICS SUPPLY/REVISED DEVLEPOMENT PLAN DATE: 7/16/07 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: Approved with the following condition: 1.) Spell out Avenue for Tyndall and street for 23rd on Sheets 1 and 2 of mylar. 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. |
| 07/24/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings and to prevent vehicles from accessing the alley. DS 3-05.2.3.C., C9-89-30 Revise the plans to provide a barrier to protect the proposed wall along the south property boundary, to protect the interior landscape border, to protect all other unpaved or landscape areas. 2) 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 3) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 4) The request for NPPO exception is denied. Submit the request using the prescribed application. A) Clarify the status of the mesquite trees in photo 8. B) Clarify the Native Plant Inventory sheet. @ plants are identified as PIP, but the summary statement indicates that all plants are to be removed. C) Show any PIP or mitigation plants on the landscape plans. 5) Landscape plans shall include a summary of Native Plant Preservation requirements identify existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 6) A Native Plant Preservation plan may be required for plants in the adjacent right of way(ROW). A permit is required to remove any ROW vegetation. Show any existing plants to remain in the right of way on the landscape plan and obtain necessary approvals from TDOT. 7) Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods (show basins). Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. DS 2-07.2.2.C 8) Revise the bicycle parking detail to select a design that properly supports bicycles (Figures 2&3). DS 2-09 9) Provide a 6' high screen wall for the loading areas. LUC Tale 3.7.2-I 10) Revise the font size to 12 pt. for the "Materials" section on the landscape plan. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 07/30/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/31/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D07-0001 Elliot Electronics Supply Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 07/31/07 DUE DATE: 07/30/07 COMMENTS: 1. DS 2-05.2.2.A.1 List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the primary developer of the project. 2. DS2-05.2.2.B.3 The proposed use of this project is under the Wholesale Use Group. Revise the use in the Zoning Information portion of page 1 to "Business Supply and Equipment Wholesaling "34". Revise the development designator in the Zoning Information portion of page 1 to "34". Revise the required FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to 2.00. Lot coverage calculations are not required, remove, and provide the correct FAR calculations. FAR calculations as indicated are incorrect. In the notes provide the maximum building height (25') per rezoning conditions and the provided building height. 3. DS 2-05.2.4.A A Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property will be required to be completed and recorded. Provide docket and page recording information on the site plan. The covenant provided is not complete. In section B. of the covenant provide the Case No. D07-0001. Once the form is complete it must be recorded. Provide a copy of the recordation information and indicate on the plans that a covenant has been recorded with the docket and page information. 4. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a barrier along the east property line to prevent vehicular access. It appears that a fence has been provided along the east property line, clarify by note what type and height of fence. 5. DS 2-05.2.4..I Revise the notes for the required and proposed setbacks to the requirements as per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.4. with a development designator of "DD". North-required 10', East ---required 0', South ---required 11/2 times the height of the structure, West----required 20' or 11/2 times the height of the structure. Provide the proposed setback in the notes and on the site plan. Provide a separate document clearly indicating how each of the rezoning conditions has been complied with. Remove note from site notes on page 1 regarding MS&R criteria (project has nothing to do with MS&R), remove note regarding backup spur (there is no backup spur indicated) 6. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide a detail of the handicap ramp clearly indicating slopes and location of truncated domes. The truncated domes indicated in note #5 are to be located where the access aisle for the handicap parking space meets the landing and must be a minimum of 24" in width. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.P The parking calculations provided are incorrect. The square footage of the structure is 9000 square feet not 6000 square feet as indicated on the plan. Revise. Provide a detail of the required handicap parking signage. FYI: The minimum distance from grade to the bottom of the handicap sign per City of Tucson standards is seven (7) feet. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.Q The required class 2 bicycle parking spaces cannot be located inside of the building. Remove note from bicycle parking calculations. Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 The type of rack required must provide two-point support for bicycles. Please review DS 2-09.8.0 Figure 2 - 7 for acceptable and unacceptable rack designs, Figure 8 for rack location, and Figure 9 for dimensional requirements. Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. 10. 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) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0001-2dp.doc |
| 08/06/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Access and approach to enclosure area will work as shown on DP. However, alley is not maintained/paved and does not currently provide for clear and safe vehicular travel. Improvements would need to be made to alley surface in order to support service vehicle access. 2. No enlcosure detail provided. A. Must show a 10 ft x 10 ft clear service area between side and rear wall protection and front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B & 6-01.4.2.C.2. B. Mount gates to the face of the CMU wall or post and design to open a minimum of 180 degrees. C. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured when open during service or closed. Demonstrate within detail and annotate " positive locking with (bayonet) anchors, Qty-4, 1" dia. x 6" long galvanized pipe flush with concrete." Please clarify and make corrections on resubmittal. Please clarify and correct on resubmittal. |
| 08/13/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 13, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Elliot Electronics Supply Development Plan D07-0001 (Second Review) T14S, R14E, Section 19 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Revised Drainage Statement The development plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and we do not recommend approval at this time. The following comments must be addressed: 1. Complied. 2. As previously commented. revise the drainage statement and development plan to show the existing and proposed floodplain boundary. The floodplain is the area that is subject to inundation by a 1- percent chance storm where the discharge is at least 100 cubic feet per second. Add a note indicating that a floodplain use permit will be required for the development. (See Development Standard 2-05.2.2.C.2) 3. As previously commented., show water surface contours at a minimum of two locatons. 4. As previously commented.' DS 2-05.2.1 B. All mapped data on the development plan shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than forty (40) feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted due to the detailed information required to show compliance. It also affords greater clarity after photographic reduction (microfilming) for record keeping purposes. 5. As previously commented., DS 2-05.2.1 H. List the contour interval near the north arrow. 6. Complied. 7. As previously commented. show more existing and proposed spot elevations on the parcel. Show that drainage patterns will be achieved and positive drainage from the building will be provided. A grading permit will be required for this project. 8. As previously commented. clearly indicate with section details, how the grades will be made from the street grade through the property. Show how the new street pavement and curbs will be accommodated. 9. As previously commented. clearly show the water harvesting areas in the section details. Show sufficient grade information to show that the water harvesting areas will be level to collect water. Show how water will be directed to these areas. 10. Complied 11. Complied 12. Complied. 13. Complied 14. Complied If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.837.4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 08/14/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 14, 2007 Eduardo J. Ornelas Arquitecto E. J. Ornelas 100 North Stone Avenue, #1002 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D07-0001 Elliot Electronics Supply Development Plan Dear Eduardo: Your submittal of July 2, 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (ESD, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Recorded Lot Combo Covenant (Zoning, DSD) 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: 624-0747 dp-resubmittal |