Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0009
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/20/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/20/2007 | DBELL1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | |
| 03/22/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D07-0009 PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC SHC WAREHOUSE -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 03/27/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/30/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#179033 March 28, 2007 Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. Attn: Daniel White P.O. Box 36985 Tucson, Arizona 85740 Dear Mr. White : SUBJECT: SHC Warehouse D07-0009 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 19, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. 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 customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/12/2007 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D07-0009, SHC WAREHOUSE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: No comment -- this case does not have regionally significant transportation impacts. Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, #405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981 |
| 04/12/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0009 SHC Warehouse 4/9/07 () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-81-59, C9-81-88 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: April 16, 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 - 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 (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 4/9/07 Comments The applicant was required to covenant the I-1 to P-1 design and performance standards as a requirement of Rezoning C9-81-88. Please provide a copy of that covenant and refer to this covenant on the General Notes section of the Development Plan. |
| 04/13/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) The height of screening material adjacent to property lines is measured on the project side of the screen, at finish grade. Provide the spot elevations for the existing wall. Label the wall heights on the Landscape and Development Plans. DS 2-06.3.7.A.1 3) Ensure that screening for the loading areas is 6' high adjacent to residentially zoned property. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 4) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. DS 10-01.4 5) Revise the landscape plan (and Development Plan) to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. DS 10-01.4, DS 2-07.2.2.B. 6) Correct the Native Plant Preservation Plan plant symbols to match the disposition proposed in the inventory list. The plan indicates that six trees are TOS, while the inventory and summary indicate that four are TOS. 7) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Provide dimensions and details for the planting areas at the perimeter of the vehicular use area. DS 2-07.2.2.D, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 04/16/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D07-0009 SHC WAREHOUSE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/16/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Delete direction from all street names in Location Map. Number buildings numerically. es |
| 04/16/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Enclosure detail - requires a minimum 10ft inside clear between the side wall protectors and between the rear wall protector and the front gates. Must be 3 sided CMU. DS 6-01.4.1B Recommend gate to be constructed with minimum 3" X 3" X 1/4" thk welded steel angle. Face with type B metal deck, with positive locking & "bayonet" anchors. Stipulate on detail page. Gates must have the ability to be secured when open. DS 6-01.4.2. * Require a minimum 14ft x 40ft clear approach to enclosure area. The vertical curb appears to conflict with this requirement. Clarify and demonstrate clear approach. DS 6-01.4.1C * Access and maneuverability for service vehicle within the new development appears to work as shown. * Also, various dumpsters are provided for existing adjacent buildings which will be in conflict with new development. Clarify what arrangements have been communicated to accomodate for these existing conditions. DP does not demonstrate if sufficient area/space for dumpsters and service vehicle maneuverability. |
| 04/17/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/17/2007 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 04/19/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comment |
| 04/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: SCH Warehouse D07-0009 Development plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 16, 2007 DUE DATE: April 17, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 March 18, 2008. 2. The provided copy of the last approved site plan does not reflect what is currently on the property. Provide a copy of the last approved site/development plan for this entire site which reflects the current configuration. 3. List the D07-0009 case number in the lower right hand corner of the sheet next to the title block. 4. Clearly indicate what all items shown on the development plan are, i.e. refuse containers, loading spaces, buildings, etc. Clearly indicate what is proposed and existing. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.1.C All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size to facilitate reproduction and photographically reduced (microfilm) for record keeping. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.1.D Provide a north arrow and identify watercourses and section corners on the location plan. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B Show all easements of record on the Development plan along with the recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the overall Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) which is located along the north & east property lines. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide a setback dimension from the south end of the southern most building to the south property line. Zoning can not verify this setback until the building height is provided. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a width dimension for all proposed sidewalks on the Development plan. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A side walk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located and per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 a minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. This said provide the pedestrian refuge and sidewalk along the entire east side of the office building and the PAAL. Provide a dimension for the sidewalk and pedestrian refuge. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C provide a sidewalk along the east side of the warehouse building and the vehicle parking spaces shown on the plan. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a dimension for the sidewalk and pedestrian refuge that is located along the west side of the office building. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a striped crosswalk for the pedestrian circulation/accessible route that crosses the PAAL located near the northwest corner of the office building. For safety reasons this crosswalk should run perpendicular to the PAAL. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. Show on the plan. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K As this site, which includes three (3) parcels and the two (2) existing buildings, which are functioning as a single site per D.S. 2-08.3.1 Provide a pedestrian circulation/accessible route to all existing buildings on the entire site. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It is unclear where the main entrance to the warehouse building is located. Once shown on the plan, provide a pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the building main entrance. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Label the heights and provide dimension for all structures on the plan. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Based on the letter from The Zoning Administrator and LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 two (2) 12' x 35' loading spaces are required. Zoning acknowledges that one (1) 12' x 35' and one (1) 12' x 55' loading space have been provide. The loading space calculation is based on the use, Construction Services, revise the calculation to reflect Construction Services. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a parking calculation for handicapped vehicle parking. Based on the International Building Code, Sec. 1106.1 the required handicapped vehicle parking is based on the total number of parking spaces provided. This said three (3) handicapped vehicle parking spaces are required, one (1) being van accessible. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a typical detail for both handicapped and standard parking spaces. Along with this detail provide a detail for the required handicapped signage. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Per Land Use Code (LUC) Sec. 3.3.7.2 the minimum length for a parallel vehicle parking space is 23'-0", it appears that all parallel vehicle parking spaces shown on the plan are 20'-0". 23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Dimension the overhang for the parking located along the south property line. 24. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 wheel stops will be required for the existing parking located long the northern portion of the west property line to prevent vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. 25. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a dimensions for the existing parking located long the northern portion of the west property line. 26. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Based on the labels provided on the grading plan, some type of loading bay is proposed at the south end of the warehouse. It appears that these loading bays will allow vehicle access to cross the parallel parking spaces to the east. Clarify how access to the loading bays is accomplished and if required provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from crossing the parallel parking spaces. Clarify if the proposed loading bays are covered. 27. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 bicycle parking requirements are based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Zoning acknowledges that the total number required is correct, revise the calculation to reflect the 66 vehicle parking spaces. 28. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Show the location of the off-street bicycle parking on the plan. Provide a dimensioned detail for class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Be aware that that development standard 2-09 has been revised. Once provided and reviewed further comments may result. The revised standards can be found at the DSD web site: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf 29. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T It appears that the access for the proposed refuse collection area, located between the office and warehouse building long the east PAAL, is across a proposed loading space. Per D.S. 6-01.4.1.J access to the containers shall not cross over the loading space. 30. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T Fully dimension the refuse collection area. 31. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W If applicable indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal & billboard) on the plan. 32. Under Land Use Code Data, Perimeter Yard: the required setback to the R2 zone to the south is 1 ½ the height of the proposed building wall. 33. Under Land Use Code Data provide the proposed building heights. 34. It appears that some type of bollards are shown through out the plan, clarify. 35. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0009dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 04/19/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: April 19, 2007 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: Patricia Gehlen SUBJECT: D07-0009 SHC Warehouse: Development Plan Staff has no comments. |
| 04/23/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 23, 2007 To: Dan White, PRE , Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: SHC Warehouse Development Plan – 1st Submittal D07-009 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. 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 a copy of this letter has been received by this office. A joint sewer service agreement will be required for this project please contact Ilene Decker with WWMD @ 740-6544. All Sheets: Add the case number, D07-009, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheet 1: Under Land Use Code Data Note No. 3 is written twice. Remove one of the two notes. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Revise Note No. 3 to include the statement AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. This should be added to the end of the first sentence. Sheet 2: Show the public and 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 line types in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 2 & 3: Show the IMS information and plan #’s for all existing manholes and sewer lines on or near property within 100’. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: Show the BCS connections with pipe size to the proposed buildings on the plan. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: Show the pipe size on the plan for the existing private on-site sewer line. Also show cleanouts and or manholes(w/rim & invert elevations) if they exist. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: Show the sewer line directional flow arrows on both the existing private sewer and the existing public sewer line. Sheet 5: Under the Project Site Notes the existing HCS and on-site 6” sewer should be marked as PRIVATE 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $200(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 mentioned comments, please contact me . CC: Project File |
| 05/09/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the SHC Warehouse Development Plan. The activity number is D07-0009. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 19th, 2007. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Development Standards 11-01.4.1.C. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Provide the development plan case number D07-0009, in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. 2. Clearly indicate on the plan (sheet 3) between existing and proposed infrastructure. (See Zoning Comment number 4) 3. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes. DS 2-05.2.C. 4. Identify the watercourses within one mile of the project on the location map. DS 2-05.2.D.2. 5. Identify in the legend the dashed line shown on the north side of the east of the structure. DS 2-05.2.1.J. 6. Darken the line weight of the lot line provided in the legend. DS 2-05.2.1.J. 7. Correct the numbering in the General Notes provided on sheet 1. Number 9 is listed adjacent to the verbiage in general note 8. DS 2-05.2.2.C. 8. Show all easements of record on the plan with recordation data, location, width and purpose of the easement. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 9. Change the font size to 12 point for all descriptions of the easements on sheet 6. DS 2-05.2.C. 10. Label all dimensions within the ROW. It must be clear what each dimension is representing. Also clarify if the existing ROW width is also the future ROW width. For example, the 120', should be labeled, "120' Future ROW." Revise appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 11. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site must be shown on the development plan. If applicable show required information. DS 2-05.2.3.F. 12. Indicate the height of all existing walls and fences surrounding the project. DS 2-05.2.3.G. 13. Provide dimensions for the PAAL on the north and east side of the structure. (See Zoning's comment 8) DS 2-05.2.4.D.3. 14. If applicable dimension, provide recordation data and indicate if public or private for any proposed easements. DS 2-05.2.4.G. 15. Dimension all proposed sidewalks on the plan view. DS 2-05.2.4.K. 16. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area with a 4' sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Provide the required information between the PAAL and the building on the east side of the property. DS 2-05.2.4.K., DS 2-08.4.1.B. 17. Clearly indicate on the plan detectable warnings (truncated domes) are provided at all transitions between the access ramps (concrete) and vehicle use areas (asphalt). All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 18. It appears access to the solid waste enclosure located on the east side of the structure is being blocked by the loading space. Solid waste enclosures are not to be placed in a manner that creates conflict/obstruction with a loading space. Revise the plan to meet this standard. DS 2-05.2.4.T. 19. Clearly indicate the solid waste enclosures. The submitted plan does not callout the solid waste enclosures and it appears two different symbols are being used. Revise the plan to clearly identify the solid waste enclosures. DS 2-05.2.4.T. 20. The base of the solid waste enclosure must be a concrete slab with an inside clear dimension of ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet by five (5) inches thick. The current detail provided on sheet 6 does not meet the minimum standards. Indicate a refuse enclosure detail as per D.S. 6-01.4.2., DS 2-05.2.4.T. 21. Provide future sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the entrance/exit drive to Grant Road. If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. DS 2-05.2.4.R. 22. It is acknowledged the plan set has a separate sheet designated for easement location. However the easement information, recordation data (docket and page), purpose, width and indication of public or private should also be on the development/site plan. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 23. Show a cross-section detail of the detention basin. Include structural elements, elevations, slopes, volume, water surface elevations, top and bottom elevations, etc. 24. Provide a detail of the cisterns used for retention and water harvesting. Include in the detail the inflow and outflow structure and provide the volume. 25. Show on the plan the 14 three foot existing wall openings that is discussed in the drainage report. 26. Provide the off site to on site and the on site to off site existing and proposed 100-year storm volume on the plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.4. 27. Show the location of the required basin maintenance access ramp on the plan view. SMDDFM 14.3.4. 28. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan. 29. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 30. Submit a soils report from a Goetechnical Engineer addressing at minimum the criteria found in SMDDFM 14.2.6. 31. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. On page 3 replace the word "county" with "city." 2. Show a cross-section detail of the detention basin. Include structural elements, elevations, slopes, volume, water surface elevations, etc. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 3. Provide a detail of the cisterns used for retention and water harvesting. Include in the detail the inflow and outflow structure and the volume. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 4. The worksheet for Irregular Channel shows a discharge of 160.88 cfs which is not shown on Exhibit 4, the drainage plan. The drainage plan shows a discharge of 120 cfs within the north PAAL. Clarify the discrepancy in the response letter and revise the drainage report to show consistent information. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.4. 5. In addition to the above comment the same worksheet for Irregular Channel shows a depth of 1' within the PAAL. This will not be approvable. Revise the design of the project to have less than 1' of water within the PAAL. SMDDFM 12.3 6. Exhibit 4, the Drainage plan, shows 78 cfs entering the site from the south. The Hydrologic Data Sheet for concentration point Offsite 40, shows the offsite 100-year discharge at 183 cfs. This is a significant difference. Clarify in detail in the response letter and revise the drainage report to provide consistent information on both documents and appropriate discussion. Be advised if 100 year discharge of 183 cfs the project is impacted by a City of Tucson Regulatory Flood Hazard Area. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4. 7. It appears this project is impacted by a City of Tucson Regulatory Flood Hazard Area. (See above comments) This project must comply with the City of Tucson floodplain regulations. Revise if applicable the drainage report to provide discussion, calculated water surface elevations (WSE), recommended finish floor elevations (FFE), provide the datum, etc. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4. 8. All flood hazard areas should provide a flowage or drainage easement (public or private). If the drainage/flowage easement is proposed to be public the City Engineer must approve the easement. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.7. 9. Be advised that if this project is within a City of Tucson Regulatory Flood Hazard Area the general notes found in Development Standard 2-05.2.2C.2. will have to be provided on the plan. 10. Submit a soils report from a Goetechnical Engineer addressing at minimum the criteria found in SMDDFM 14.2.6. 11. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. |
| 05/18/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 18, 2007 Daniel White Physical Resources Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 36985 Tucson, Arizona 857?? Subject: D07-0009 SHC Warehouse Development Plan Dear Daniel: Your submittal of March 19, 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 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Addressing, ESD, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Last Approved Development Plan (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, 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: 690-1769 |