Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0024
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/20/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 18, 2008 To: Kevin Hall Design Construction Consultants 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 Environment Quality Subject: Almond Plaza at the Northeast Corner of Country Club and Aviation Hwy Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D07-024 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. Sheet 1: 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 linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 2: The IMS # shown for the existing public manhole shown on plan does not appear to be correct. Also the rim and invert elevations have not been included. Sheet 2: Show the size of pipe/length and slope for each section of proposed private sewer between elements. This office will require a revised set of blue lines, 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 $39.00 (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. |
| 03/21/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Although you placed a note on the first sheet indicated a new hydrate was required; the utility sheet just shows three small meters. |
| 03/24/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/28/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/28/2008 | 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: D07-0024 ALMOND PLAZA/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/27/08 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: 1.) Delete Suites 1-4 on sheets 1 and 2. Suite numbers will be assigned per PC policy upon request for Tenant Improvments. es |
| 04/10/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Almond Plaza D07-0024 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2008 DUE DATE: April 16, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a separate response letter for zoning, 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 June 05, 2008. 2. Zoning acknowledges the future right-of-way line along Country Club but was unable to find the future curb and sidewalk. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F If applicable, show the future ROW, curb and sidewalk for both County Club and Aviation Highway. 3. The handicapped sign detail has been removed from the plan. Provide a detail for the handicapped signage. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The Handicapped sign does not meet the minimum requirements, see attached. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. The provided Class 2 bicycle rack detail does not provide the materials for lighting and a fully dimensioned layout. Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.B a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall or other obstruction measured from the end of the bicycle rack to the perpendicular wall. A minimum of thirty (30) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a parallel wall or other obstruction as measured from the side of the bicycle rack to the parallel wall. Show these dimension on the detail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed Class 2 bicycle rack is an unacceptable bike rack per D.S. 2-09 Figure 4. Please review the revised D.S. 2-09, which can be found at the DSD web site: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf. Also, provide off-street bicycle parking detail; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Zoning acknowledges the setback dimension shown from southeast corner of the building to the east property line. Based on T.O.P. 22' the require setback would be thirty-three (33) feet. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.3 Where an unbroken section of a wall or a building is not parallel with the lot line, the required perimeter yard may be applied to the average width; however, such perimeter yard shall not be narrower at any point than half the required width, or narrower at any point than three (3) feet. This said provide a setback dimension from the mid point of the east wall of suite 4 perpendicular to the east property line. Zoning acknowledges that the building will meet setbacks. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The revised parking calculation in not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.5.1 Land Uses Sharing Common Elements. For a mixed use development, the total number of required spaces is ninety (90) percent of the sum of the amount required for each separate principal use in Sec. 3.3.4, not ninety (90) percent of each individual use. Revise the calculation. 7. Clarify what the dark rectangular shape is that is shown just north of the southern most handicapped vehicle parking spaces and near the southwest corner of suite 3. It appears that these structures may encroach into the minimum four (4) foot sidewalk width and restrict visibility to the bicycle parking. Additional comments maybe forth coming. After discussions with Ron Brown, Structural Review, City of Tucson, Development Services Department in regards to the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 and the requirements for detectable warnings (truncated domes), it has been determined that some locations previously requiring truncated domes may no longer require them. The following comments are a direct result of these discussions. If you have any questions in regards to the requirements for truncated domes contact Ron Brown @837-4908. 8. The truncated domes shown at the handicapped vehicle parking space access ramps are no longer required. Remove the truncated domes from the plan and detail. 9. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 10. 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\D07-0024dp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 04/14/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0024 Almond Plaza () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-72-20 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arroyo Chico GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/16/08 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 () See Additional Comments Attached (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 07/03/08 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 4/07/08 |
| 04/18/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/04/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Almond Plaza Development Plan Engineering Resubmittal Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB PARK PTN SLY 451.93' LOT 1 BLK 1 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0024 SUMMARY: The revised Development Plan package including the revised Development Plan, Drainage Report, Landscape documents, title report, and response letter were received by Development Services Department Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time due to remaining drainage comment. The Drainage Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: Proposed basin shows no indication of bleed pipe. Due to many instances of basin infiltration issues for developed projects and to reduce mosquito issues, it is imperative that a bleed pipe be provided to facilitate project completion if post construction percolation tests do not provide adequate drain down time. Revise basin location or design to provide bleed pipe outlet. A pump was proposed as a solution if post construction percolation rates are not adequate. Explain where the pump outlet would be directed. Pumps are typically not approved for City projects due to maintenance issues. If insufficient elevation does not allow bleed pipe, indicate shallower basin with bleed pipe and show other areas of detention/retention in water harvest areas and provide calculations for these volumes. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Label existing Q100 with the developed condition Q100 on Development plan. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.1: Correct case number "D07-0024" on each sheet of the Development Plan. 3) For detail 10/C1.2, add minimum 2-ft dimension width for truncated domes. Revise detail to assure that the truncated domes are located at the threshold of concrete at the edge of pavement, not on the ramp portion (at the defining edge between the parking area and the pedestrian area). Revise plan view sheet C1.1 to relocate truncated dome hatching at all ramp locations on planview. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: On landscape planview, remove any vegetation in the access to basin. Resubmittal is required. Engineering will provide expedited resubmittal Engineering review when ready. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report, revised Development Plan, and revised Landscape Plan, and response letter. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 06/06/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 6, 2008 Danny X Quihuis Architectural Design Group 2510 East Grant Road, Suite 140 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D07-0024 Almond Plaza Development Plan Dear Danny: 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Wastewater, Addressing, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) PLEASE NOTE THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM ADOT. IF THERE IS A TRAFFIC STUDY, PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY FOR ADOT'S RECORDS. 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: 323-3337 dp-resubmittal |