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 - D07-0009
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/27/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 27, 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 - 2nd 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. 1. 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. This comment refers to General Note No. 3 not the Land Use Code Data please revise. 2. Sheet 3: Only part of the sewer line is shown on sheet 3 it should match sheet 2 and 5 3. Sheet 5: Show the BCS connection slope/ length and material of pipe to the proposed buildings on the plan. 4. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: Show cleanouts and or manholes(w/rim & invert elevations) if they exist. This is the 2nd request. There should also be a symbol for the cleanout in the legend. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $156.00 (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 mentioned comments, please contact me . |
| 07/10/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D07-0009 SHC WAREHOUSE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 7/10/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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. ES |
| 07/16/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/19/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. DP Sheet 3, access and approach to both service areas appears okay. However, the existing enclosure which is annotated at the southend must also conform with DS 6-01.3 & 6-01.4. Please clarify and provide dimensions within DP. 2. Refuse enclosure detail does not provide the required 10' x 10' inside clear service area between the wall protectors and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B Side wall protection is also required but not shown on detail. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2 3. Recommend gates be mounted to the face of the CMU wall or post with the ability to open a minimum of 180 degrees. Please make corrections upon resubmittal. |
| 07/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: SCH Warehouse D07-0009 Development plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 19, 2007 DUE DATE: July 19, 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. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide a dimension from the northeast corner of the building perpendicular to the PAAL. If this dimension is less then five (5) feet a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) will be required. 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. 3. This comment has not been addressed. After a discussion with Craig Gross, a pedestrian circulation that connects this project to the existing buildings will be required. Zonings recommends providing a connection across the PAAL near the northwest corner of the existing building located in the north west corner of the most northern parcel. A sidewalk and handicapped ramp would be required from the proposed sidewalk on this project parcel with a striped crosswalk across the PAAL to the existing sidewalk. Per Craig Gross if there is not an existing curb ramp located in a convent location for this connection, then a curb ramp would not be require for the pedestrian circulation on the adjacent parcel. 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. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. The Loading Space Calculation should read: Construction Services (13,915 SF) 3.4.5.3, 2 spaces required, 2 spaces provided. The reference to 14' height is incorrect. Per LUC Sec 3.4.5.3 the minimum height is 15'. 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. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges the handicapped parking spaces shown on the plan. Provide the handicapped parking calculation on the plan per the IBC. 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. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a dimension for the width of the access aisle on the detail. COT Standard Detail 207 sheet 5 of 5 does not address the slopes and dimension for a parking stall. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sect 502.5 provide the maximum surface, 1:48, slopes on the detail. The dimension for the height of the handicapped sign is incorrect. This dimension should be 7'-0" from the bottom of the main sign to finish grade. 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. 7. The detectable warning devices, truncated domes, shown for the ramp located on the southeast side at the north end of the PAAL, and the northern most handicapped parking spaces are shown incorrectly. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 the detectable warnings 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. 8. Provide a dimension for the wheel stops that are to be provided along the northern portion of the west property line, see D.S. 3-05.2.3.2 9. The 4.0' dimension, shown on the bicycle parking space detail, between 3 racks does not meet the requirement of D.S. 2-09.5.1.A a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of post or racks. (Figure 9) 10. There appears to be some type of covered walkway and covered porch located between the north and south building, clarify. 11. It appears that the office building is encroaching into the existing water easement. Provide documentation from the water utility allowing the structure to be built within the easement. 12. 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-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/26/2007 | 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 07/20/07 () 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: July 19, 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: 7/19/07 Comments A rezoning condition for case C9-81-88, was to covenant the I-1 to P-1 design and performance standards. Please provide a copy of that covenant and refer to this covenant on the General Notes section of the Development Plan. |
| 08/06/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: August 6, 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 June 21st, 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, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) SUBMITTAL: The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The office building is encroaching into the existing water easement. Provide from documentation from the water utility company permitting the structure to be located within the easement. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 2. Indicate on sheet 3, the site plan, the existing wall on the ease side of the project. Include the height. DS 2-05.2.3.G. 3. Provide pedestrian circulation from the proposed buildings to the existing structures on the adjacent parcels. The intent of this development is to function as a single site. See Zoning's comment 3. 4. 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 is not being met on the northeast side of building one. Revise the site and grading plan, sheet 3 and 4, to meet the minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area with a 4' sidewalk. DS 2-05.2.4.K., DS 2-08.4.1.B. 5. 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 The above comment is from the first review and has not been adequately addressed. The access ramps located within the ROW of Grant Road must meet the current ADA federal requirements. Revise the plan to provide the truncated domes at the access ramps within the ROW for Grant Road. Refer to Zoning's comment 7. 6. On the grading plan sheet 4, keynote 5 is not legible. Place the keynote in a visible location. 7. The cross section for the basin has the verbiage "2003 Spillway." Was the intent to put "2303?" Clarify. And revise accordingly. 8. Provide the retention volume for the cisterns. This information should be provided with the detail shown on sheet 6. Also clarify on the grading plan, sheet 4, if the 1580 cubic feet is for each tank or the total volume. 9. Show on the site plan, sheet 3, the 14 three foot existing wall openings that is discussed in the drainage report. The site plan and the grading plan must match. 10. 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. The above comment is from the first review. The response to this comment is acceptable. However be advised both the on site to off site existing and proposed 100-year storm volume must be provided on the grading plan at the time of the formal review if the grading plan. GEOTECHINICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) COMMENTS 1. Provide a minimum recommended setback from the basin to the structure. SMDDFM 14.2.6.(b). DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The drainage report does not provide a significant portion of the original report; hydrologic data sheets, FIRM panel, the routing data, etc. The submitted report also provides several of the same pages, for example 4 copies of the title page and the table of contents and 4 pages of the sizing calculations for the wall openings (with picture). Perform a quality check on the report prior to submittal. 2. In addition to the above comment a written response to the drainage report comments was not submitted. With the next submittal provide a detailed response letter, noting where the corrections can be found; page number, section, paragraph, exhibit, etc. 3. Be advised the basin maintenance inspection report must be returned to the Development Services Department, Engineering Division. 4. Provide discussion in the drainage report where the 50 cfs discharges to. The drainage report does not provide discussion on where the 50 cfs is directed. The on site to off site discharge at the entrance/exit drive to Grant Road equates to 74 cfs. The discharge of the proposed watershed in 0.13 acre in size equates to 73.5 cfs. Clearly describe in the narrative where the 50 cfs discharges to. Revise appropriate supporting documents. |
| 08/07/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 7, 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 June 21, 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 (DUPD, ESD, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Covenant (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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 |