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 - D07-0034
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/08/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/14/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#186052 August 14, 2007 Gromatzky Dupree & Associate, SW LLC. Attn: Chuck Schuiteman, AIA 250 S Craycroft Rd, Suite200 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Schuiterman : SUBJECT: Country Club Industrial Park D07-0034 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 8, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 08/15/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 14, 2007 To: Chuck Schuiteman GD&A 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: Country Club Industrial Park Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D07-034 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast Interceptor. Per written guidance provided by the PCWMD Development Services Section, sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the downstream public sewerage system for this small project, and a formal capacity response letter from the PCWMD will not be required for this small project. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D07-034, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #10 to read as follows: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #12 to read as follows: 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 General Note #11 to read as follows: ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. Sheet 2: The sewer line segments between elements(cleanouts and manholes) of the private sewer both proposed and existing need to be marked with length/slope/size and material of pipe. Sheet 2: The existing and proposed sewer lines shown on plan are not distinguishable from each other and do not match what is shown in the legend. Sheet 2: The existing sewer line and manholes shown in Country Club Road need to be clearly marked as public. Sheet 2: Show that MH#6096-01 was constructed under plan # G-94-046. Sheet 2: Proposed MH#1 will need to be coated. Sheet 2: Previous development plan and G-94-046 show that the two existing buildings and proposed building #3 will discharge to an on-site private lift station which discharges to MH#6096 via a private force main. Revise the drawing to show this and make sure to show all slopes/lengths/sizes and rim and invert elevations. Sheet 2: In regards to Building #4: Proposing a new public MH over 21” line will be very expensive due to coating and flow management. Connecting to existing manholes will be less expensive but still costly. Connecting to existing private lift station would require prior approval by Mike Redmond of PDEQ. A meeting will need to be arranged with Mr. Pete Mulvey and Mr. Tim Rowe of PCWMD (520)740-6547 to discuss connecting to MH#4278-18 Sheet 2: With proposed 6” BCS it is recommended that manholes be installed instead of cleanouts. 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 second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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. |
| 08/16/2007 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project D07-0034 GROMATZKY DUPREE & ASSC, SOUTHWEST, LLC COUNTRY CLUB INDUSTRIAL PARK -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 08/24/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The loading zones adjacent to Building number 4 and the refuse container loacated adjacent to and east of Building number 4 must be screened per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Detail all required screening, including its location, height and materials on the Landscape Plan. 2. Show the proposed location on the landscape plan of the Whitethorn Acacia (#5 on the NPP Plan) to be transplanted on site. 3. Add the CDRC Development Plan case number (D07-0034) to all sheets of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Native Plant Preservation Plan in the lower right hand corner near the title block. |
| 08/27/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/29/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D07-0034 Country Club Industrial Park Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/29/07 DUE DATE: 09/06/07 COMMENTS: 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 09/05/08. 2. 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. 3. This project is greater than 25% expansion for the site and therefore requires full compliance with the LUC and Development Standards for the entire site. Provide copies of the last approved and stamped site/development plans for all previous expansions. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been assigned the case number D07-0034. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. 5. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 In the "Site Data" portion of page 1 of 2 indicate the "subject to: " sections for the Commercial Storage and the Construction/Heavy Equipment Wholesaling for each zone (PI and I-1) 6. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 The required height indicated as 75' above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) of the N.E. end of the runway is incorrect. Per the AHD maps the correct height varies across the site from 120' to 140' above the end of runway. Revise note. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.B Indicate the zoning of the property adjacent to the north property line. Change the zoning indicated as P-1 to P-I (Park Industrial). 8. DS 2-05.2.4.I The southern corner of building #4 appears to be located over a property line which is not allowed. Two options are available. A tax parcel combination and covenant regarding the development and use of real property will be required to be completed and the covenant recorded with the docket and page being provided on the plan. Provide copies of both documents at next submittal. A lot line reconfiguration approved by the City of Tucson and covenant regarding the development and use of real property will be required to be completed and the covenant recorded with the docket and page being provided on the plan Provide copies of both documents at next submittal Along this same property line is an ingress/egress easement indicated by key note #22 as being abandoned by this development plan. An easement cannot be abandoned by a development plan. It must be abandoned by a separate instrument. Revise note #22 and provide recording information (docket and page) for the abandonment. 9. Ds 2-05.2.4.K See DS 2-08 for requirements for pedestrian circulation path requirements. DS 2-08.3.1 Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. Within this pedestrian circulation path, an accessible route is also required. The accessible route must connect all areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. This accessible route may be identical to the pedestrian circulation path. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all places of public accommodation, all buildings, all parking spaces designated for use by the physically disabled, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas adjacent to accessible buildings, and all other common use areas. Per the above quoted code section, some of the areas that do not meet pedestrian circulation requirements are a continuous path between all buildings including the existing structures, pedestrian refuge area not indicated along the south side of building #1, connection to the adjacent street from buildings #3 and #4, trash enclosures require access from the pedestrian circulation path, crosswalks and handicap ramps between buildings #3 and #1 including to the parking spaces at the northeast corner of building #1. Clearly indicate the width of all required sidewalks (min. 4' width). Detail 3 on page 1 of 2, truncated domes are required on the landing where the access aisle meets the landing. Minimum 24" in depth and the full width of the access aisle. Clearly indicate the maximum slope of the handicap parking spaces and access aisles as per ANSI 117.1-2003 sec. 502.5 (max. 1:48) 10. DS 2-05.2.4.N Provide dimensions and height of structure on the footprint for the proposed structures. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.O Corrections are required in the loading zone calculations as follows: Building #2 is a wholesale use, per LUC 3.4.5 and 3.4.5.2 table 2 requires 12x55 loading zones not 12x35 as indicated. Revise. Revise the uses indicated from Warehouse to Commercial Storage in the loading zone calculations. 12. DS 2-05.2.4.P In the parking calculations on Page 1 of 2 revise the following: Revise the uses indicated from Warehouse to Commercial Storage in the parking space calculations. The required parking for Commercial Storage use per LUC 3.3.4 is 1 per 5000 GFA, since there appears to be no outside storage this will be the required parking ratio. 13. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Clearly indicate how many class one bicycle parking spaces are at each location on the site plan. Must total the required 39 spaces. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. 14. DS 2-05.2.4.W Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. 15. 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. 16. 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\D07-0034dp.doc |
| 08/29/2007 | 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: D07-0034 COUNTRY CLUB INDUSTRIAL PARK/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 29, 2007 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: Include: A development of lots 1, 2 and 3 of Country Club Commerce Center, Bk 54, Pg 71 (in Legal Description). jg |
| 09/06/2007 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 09/06/2007 1:58 PM >>> The subdivision plat Country Club Commerce Center M&P 54/71 (attached) shows three access points onto Country Club Road. There also exists a 1' no access easement dedicated by this plat along the eastern most boundary of this plat. The middle access point as shown by this development plan has moved about 140' to the south and is now lining up with Mossman Road which is encumbered by the 1' no access easement. If Traffic Engineering approves this change of access point you will need to apply to the Real Estate Division for the abandonment of easement. Along with the Application please provide the Real Estate Division with a legal description and sketch of a 1' no access for the two areas. One of the new access point and one for the old access point. Please contact the Real Estate Division at 791-4181 for the RES Application needed for the requested Abandonment of Easement. |
| 09/06/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 6, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0034 PROJECT NAME: Country Club Industrial Park PROJECT ADDRESS: Country Club Industrial Park PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The proposed access points shall have 25' radius curb returns (DS 3-01.0 figure 6). Call out the radius of the proposed curb returns. 3. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends a continuous right turn lane. Exclusive right turn lanes shall be used in lieu of a continuous right turn lane. 4. Is there enough pavement to stripe a continuous left turn lane throughout the frontage of the project? A meeting maybe warranted discussing this option. 5. Schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. 6. Traffic Engineering approves the change of access points along Country Club so you will need to provide the Real Estate Division with a legal description and sketch of a 1' no access for the two areas. One of the new access point and one for the old access point. An application for these legal descriptions can be obtained through Real Estate (talk with Jim Stoyanoff of DOT Real Estate) 7. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 8. List the ROW width and dimension the width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-03.2.3.D) If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/06/2007 | 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 D07-0034 Country Club Industrial Park 09/05/07 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-93-11 & D99-070 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/6/07 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 (XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 69/05/07 |
| 09/10/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Enclosures are currently positioned so that they impede the continous flow of traffice for the service vehicle within development. DS 6-01.4.1.H. Recommend repositioning the enclosure at the NE corner of bldg 4 so service vehicle approachs from the south moving north bound. 2. Refuse enclosures at the NW corner of bldg 4 and SW corner of bldg 3 do not provide adequate maneuverability or the required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach due to conflict with adajacent parking spaces. DS 6-01.4.1.C, 6-014.1.I, & 6-01.3.1.A. Recommend positioning enclosures at the sw corner of bldg 3 to a 30 degree angles to allow for clear approach. Reposition enclosure at NW corner of bldg 4 to a 45 or 60 degree angle to allow for a straight approach. 3. No enclosure detail provided. Refer to DS 6-01.3.0 & 6-01.4.0. A. Ensure provide a 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area between the side and rear wall protectors and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2 B. Equip gates with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and demonstrate within detail. Recommend, "positive locking with (bayonet) anchors, 4-qty., 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete". Please make corrections on resubmittal. |
| 09/10/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/10/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 09/10/2007 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 09/10/2007 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/14/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D07-0034 Country Club Industrial Park: Development Plan 8-8-07 Staff has no comments. |
| 09/20/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: County Club Industrial Development Plan Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4 of County Club Industrial ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0034 SUMMARY: The Development Plan package, including a Drainage Report with an exhibit of the conceptual grading plan, Landscape documents, and zoning conditions, was 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. The Drainage Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: The project is within the Rodeo Wash Watershed, a critical basin management area. Address the following drainage comments: a) State in the statement whether the existing Q100 entering the site is verified as current condition. Provide discussion in statement as to whether there is any impact from this offsite watershed to the project. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: Confirm that existing basin shows bleed pipe. 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 design to provide outlet and clarify the outlet structure on Development Plan. c) Label existing Q100 outletting from basin. Clarify developed condition Q100 on a drainage exhibit and on Development plan. d) DS Sec.10-02.12.2.1.4: Flow depths shall not exceed 1-foot during the 100-year event. Provide cross sections in PAAL south of proposed building 3 to show all weather access is provided during 100-year event. e) Add case number and administrative address to cover page of report: D07-0034. f) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Provide current infiltration test results for existing basin. Provide a geotechnical report discussing suitability and feasibility of soils for proposed project. The report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. Infiltration test results will be required to be submitted. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Show how infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. 2) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.e, 2-05.2.4.H.3: At grading plan stage of review it will be necessary to provide scupper calculations and other grading plan related drainage data DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 3) Submit copy of pre-submittal meeting engineering comments with re-submittal. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: It is imperative that the elevations for floodplain WSEL, FFE's, proposed elevations, and topography data shown are clarified with respect to their datums. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E, 2-05.2.1.H: It will be necessary to provide a local benchmark for basis of elevation for this project. Provide datum for vertical data and existing topographic contour lines since elevations do not match old plans. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J: Address the following Legend comments: a) Clarify lot corner monuments in legend. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.S: Indicate solid waste vehicle circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability in PAAL as the two pick-up locations shown at west side do not show accessibility. Provide maneuverability on planview for design of the Loading zones / commercial access showing width of access areas, and turning radius for the design vehicle. 8) DS Sec.6-01.4.1.I & 3.2.A: On a solid waste pick-up area detail(s), show bollards on both sides. On dumpster detail show 10-ft inside dimensioning between bollards (both ways). 9) DS Sec.11-01.9: On cross section(s), indicate with dimension, the location of property line such that any proposed walls are fully within the property limits including footer construction area. 10) In response letter state status of completion of conditions of rezoning. In particular, show whether conditions 3-5 are reflected in plan view for Country Club right-of-way. 11) DS Sec.2-5.3.2.D: Address the following conceptual grading comments: a) Check proposed elevations along south side of building 3 to assure transition from existing grades to proposed elevations in PAAL and adjacent pedestrian areas. b) Check proposed elevations along west corner of proposed building 4 to assure accessible access is provide to any entrances from proposed pedestrian walkways around this building. c) Provide more existing elevations within and around existing basin especially near any inlets and outlets. d) Add more spot elevations at curb (keynote 9) to clarify intent of this structure. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1: Add the following notes on the development plan: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a: "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." b) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.b: "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates may be required for Building 3." c) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Add general note stating that the project is designed to meet the special overlay zone criteria: LUC Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, and Sec.29, W.A.S.H. Ordinance of the Tucson Code. 13) Address the following drainage related comments: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Show roof drainage. Also, provide locations and types of drainage structures including any sidewalk scuppers. b) LUC 3.7.4.5.B: Show sufficient existing and proposed grades and drainage patterns to demonstrate that water harvesting will be achieved as described by this section of the code. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, provide curb openings/depressed curb. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.2, 2-05.2.4.H.1: Delineate the 100-year flood limits, for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, along south boundary of the proposed lot 3. Show detention/retention basin 100-year ponding limits. Label water surface contour intervals. The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200 feet. d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: Show access to basin. This may need to be re-established during grading. e) DS Sec.2-05: Label minimum finished floor elevation for proposed building 3 on sheet 2. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B, 2-05.2.4.G: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. All existing easements will be explained in a response letter or drawn on the plat, and recordation information, location, width, and purpose shall be included. All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned for widths and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: The following information regarding existing public right-of-way for Country Club shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks, preferably in a cross section for clarity. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.1: Show new curb return radius dimension of 25-ft or 40-ft (industrial) for entrances to accommodate future vehicle and truck use will be provided at Country Club. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.G: Clarify whether there are any cross access agreements in place for the existing commercial parcel, i.e. to access for interlot access. Provide information regarding cross access agreements. 18) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Revise landscape plan sheets where the SVT is in conflict with proposed trees. Other than trees as noted below, plant materials located within existing and future sight visibility triangles shall be limited to ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty inches. Trees may be located within existing and future sight visibility triangles only if clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade upon installation, and at all times thereafter. The trunk caliper of any species selected may not exceed twelve inches in diameter at maturity. Trees with multiple trunks are not allowed. Trees may not be planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect as viewed from the motorist's perspective. The number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility. 19) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application and floodplain use permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. Also, a Right-of-way Use Permit may be needed; contact TDOT Permits and Codes. Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit a Development Plan, revised Drainage Report, and other documentation. 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 |
| 09/21/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 21, 2007 Chuck Schuiteman, AIA Gromatzky Dupree & Associates, Southwest, LLC 250 South Craycroft Road, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D07-0034 Country Club Industrial Park Development Plan Dear Chuck: Your submittal of August 8, 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 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Addressing, Real Estate, Traffic, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Please note that TIA has conditions of approval that must be addressed on the resubmittal of these plans. 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: 881-4390 |