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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/05/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/05/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | September 5, 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 - 3rd 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. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me . |
| 09/07/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: October 8, 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 September 5th, 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. On sheet 4 remove the box and the verbiage for the image of drainage wall openings. 2. 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. The above comment is from the previous review and has not been adequately addressed. Sheet 3 and 4 now shows a callout with the verbiage, "Construct 14 total 3ft long openings in existing wall of offsite flow." The previous plan showed the wall openings as existing. The drainage report, Section 3 Existing Conditions Drainage Analysis, subsection 3.1 Offsite Hydrology discusses the wall openings as existing. Clarify and/or revise the plan appropriately. All documents must match; drainage report, site, grading and landscape plan. GEOTECHINICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) COMMENTS 1. Provide a minimum recommended setback from the basin to the structure. SMDDFM 14.2.6.(b). The above comment is from the previous review. It has been brought to the attention of this office the retention design is to change where a retaining wall is proposed. Another addendum will be required to be submitted with the revised drainage report and development plan package. This addendum must address specific design criteria for a retaining wall system within a basin; depth of footing, protection of footing, building setback recommendations, discussion on soils supporting the design with periodic inundation and saturation. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. With the next submittal provide a detailed response letter, noting where the corrections can be found; page number, section, paragraph, exhibit, etc. 2. Indicate in Section 4.3 Maintenance that the basin maintenance inspection report must be returned to the Development Services Department, Engineering Division. 3. This property lies within the boundaries of a "Balanced Drainage Basin," which requires a detention basin facility that ensures the post-development 2, 10 and 100 year peak discharge from the site will not exceed pre-development conditions. Section 4.2 Detention/Retention does not provide discussion regarding how the detention requirements will be met. The statement, "Since offsite and onsite runoff is combined it is not possible to isolate the onsite runoff to manage the outflow," is not an acceptable discussion on why detention can not be met. Provide a detention analysis with discussion, calculations (pre and post Q) with routing. 4. It has been brought to this office's attention that the entire design of the basin is to change by adding a retaining wall and making the basin deeper. Be advised all appropriate plan sheets and details must be revised to reflect the design change. |
| 09/25/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: SCH Warehouse D07-0009 Development plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 25, 2007 DUE DATE: October 03, 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. The Zoning Review Section conditionally approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements 2. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 The required dimension for the wheel stop is two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space, three (3) feet is shown on the plan and detail. See Figure 5 D.S. 3-05.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 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-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 10/03/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/05/2007 | 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 10/05/07 () 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: October 4, 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: 10/04/07 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 note to the General Notes section of the Development Plan that clarifies that the all the design and performance standards have been met for P-I zoning, including landscape and screening. |
| 10/09/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 9, 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 September 5, 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 4 Copies Revised Development Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Landscape Plans (DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) LANDSCAPE PLANS REQUESTED BY LANDSCAPE REVIEW SECTION. 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 |