Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0035
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/16/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 15, 2007 To: Paul Dominguez Arch West 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: Mintec, Inc. Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D07-035 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. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D07-035, 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: 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: Depending on the values for FUE on this project if the proposed FUE is greater then or equal to 144, a capacity response letter will be required. Sheet 1: The addition will have to have its own separate connection to the sewer system if the total FUE are greater then 216. Sheet 1: A note needs to be included which describes the proposed addition-sewer connecting to the existing private sewer on site. Sheet 1: Show the plan# and size of pipe for the public sewer line running along Richey Blvd. Sheet 1: Show the sewer directional flow arrows for both the existing and proposed sewer lines. Sheet 1: Show the size of pipe for the public sewer line running along Ft. Lowell Rd. Also call out the existing sewer line in the street as public and the sewer line on site as private. Sheet 1: Show the slope of the private sewer lines on site. Sheet 1: Keynote #9 appears to be pointing to the water line and not the sewer line. Sheet 1:Revise General Note #9 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. 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 $50.00 (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. |
| 08/28/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The plans appear to have two fire lines. Both seem to go under the new portion of the building. Please clarify. |
| 08/28/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Development Plan. The activity number is D06-. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on , 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE STATEMENT SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DRAINAGE REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Statement was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit may 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 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 assigned case number, D07-0035, to the lower right hand corner of all sheets. 2. Indicate if the existing easements shown on the plan are public or private. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 3. Dimension from the centerline of Presidio Road to the edge of pavement, front of existing sidewalk and to the ROW line. Label accordingly. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 4. Dimension from the centerline of Richey Blvd. to the front of the existing sidewalk. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 5. Indicate if the shown ROW for Fort Lowell Road is existing, future or both. DS 2-05.2.3.C. If applicable provide the future SVTs for the entrance/exit drive to Fort Lowell Road. 6. If applicable show existing storm drain facilities on and adjacent to the site. DS 2-05.2.3.F. 7. It appears Fort Lowell Road is not built out to the future ROW per the Major Streets and Route Plan, that said show on the plan the future sidewalk and curb location. DS 2-05.2.4.F. 8. If applicable show all proposed easements on the plan, dimensioned, labeled and indicate if public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G. 9. Include on the development plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 10. Provide 18' curb returns for the entrance/exit drive to Richey Blvd. TAMG 5.6 11. Indicate in keynote 66 if the scuppers are existing or proposed. If the scuppers are proposed provide in the drainage statement calculations, scupper details and discussion stating that the 10-year flow will be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. DS 2-05.2.4.H.3. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Show the locations of all off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site discharge points. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7. DRAINAGE STATEMENT COMMENTS 1. After reviewing an aerial photo and the last approved site plan, the proposed development is eliminating two v-ditches where drainage was discharged to a landscape area. Provide discussion in the drainage statement on the drainage structure that is replacing the v-ditches. 2. Provide the last approved drainage report for reference. |
| 08/30/2007 | 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: D07-0035 MINTEC, INC/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 30, 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: 1.) Correct Ft. Lowell Rd to Fort Lowell Road. 2.) Correct Presidio Rd. to Presidio Road. 3.) Ghost-in adjacent Lot numbers. 4.) Add recording Book and Page to Farmington Addition in Title Block. jg |
| 08/31/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#186386 August 31, 2006 Archwest, P.C. Attn: Paul Dominguez 1051 N Columbus Blvd. 103 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Dominguez : SUBJECT: Mintec, Inc. D07-0035 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 10, 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 Warren McElyea at (520) 918-8268. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/06/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D07-0035 Mintec Inc Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 5, 2007 DUE DATE: September 10, 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. Note: A previously approved development plan that matches what is currently existing on site has not been provided to verify existing parking and off-street calculations, configurations, existing building GFA, and landscaping. The last approved plan on file in records is for a TI (T97CM3893) and carport installation in rear parking lot. This plan provided one hundred and ten (110) parking spaces for office use and expanded the parking lot area in the rear. A full review at this time is not possible. Additional information must be provided to clarify how previous changes/expansions to the site have occurred with the applicant providing cumulative expansion calculations for parking areas and GFA and verified as being correct. It is suggested prior to resubmitting the plan to CDRC that the applicant meets with staff to discuss project and what can be done to assist in bringing this site into compliance. 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 August 9, 2007. 2. Please provide on the development plan the expansion calculations based on building expansion and parking area expansion. Include the credit for the structure to be demolished. Please show the footprint of the existing structure that will be demolished and include within the footprint the square footage and dimensions of the structure. 3. Please remove all references to nonconforming status of structure on the development plan. The term would imply that the structure no longer complies with land use regulations applicable to the zoning category in which the building is located. The non-conforming structure would require a letter from the Zoning Administrator verifying its non-conforming status. LUC 6.2.14 4. Please correct general note 1. The existing zoning designation is P-I, not P1. 5. Case number D07-0035 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the DP, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 6. Please revise general note 2 by adding "subject to 3.5.5.1.E., F., and H". LUC 2.7.1.2.B.9 7. Please add note which reads, "The project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone". DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 8. Please add all conditions of rezoning on the development plan preferably on the first sheet and provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with rezoning conditions as they apply to the development plan. DS 2-05.2.1.K & DS 2-05.2.4.K 9. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G 10. Please provide the type and dimensioned width of paving and curbs within all streets surrounding the site. DS 2-05.2.3.C 11. Please dimension the PAAL running parallel with Ft. Lowell Road within the site. Minimum two-way PAAL width is twenty-four feet. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 12. Please provide revised parking calculations based on the last approved plan (T97CM3893). One hundred and ten (110) spaces were provided (108 required) on site utilizing parking for office use at 1:200 sq. ft. of GFA (please note the 1200 sq. ft. building to be demolished was not included in this calc.). Based on research and development with required parking at 1:250 sq. ft. of GFA the required number of parking spaces is one hundred and ten (110) spaces. LUC 3.3.4 13. Please provide the dimensions of the new addition within the building footprint. DS 2-05.2.4.N 14. Please add to detail 5/3 the dimension form the bottom of the accessible signage to the top of curb. Per TDOT this must be a minimum of seven (7) feet. 15. T97CM3893 approved the location of only one (1) off-street loading space on site. The new loading space must meet the performance criteria of LUC 3.5.5.1.E which requires all work and activity in connection with, and secondary to, a manufacturing use, such as loading and unloading areas, docks, and platforms, shall be located entirely within a building or an area on the lot which is enclosed on all sides by a solid wall or fence six (6) feet in height. Such loading and unloading areas, docks, and platforms shall be located as far from any surrounding residential uses or zones as is reasonably possible. Both spaces may be required to meet this performance criteria if expansion calculations are 25% or greater. 16. The last approved plan T97CM3893 required six (6) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces and provided seven (7) spaces. The new addition would require two (2) more spaces in addition to the previous six (6) that were required. Please revise bicycle parking calculations. 17. Please provide on the DP the FAR calculations (maximum allowed is 1.50). Add allowed maximum height (50 ft.) and height of exist structure and proposed structure. LUC 3.2.3.2.B Development Designator "33" 18. 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. DS 2-05.2.4.V 19. 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. DS 2-05.2.4.W & LUC 3.5.4.26 20. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0035dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/07/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Fifty (50) percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two (2) years from the date of planting. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5 In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement. The width of the border is the distance from the property line to the screen location. Revise the plans and calculations for coverage for the Fort Lowell border. DS 2-15.3.4.C.2 3) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. Trees that are ten feet or more away from the paved area are not included in the calculation. LUC 3.7.2.3.A, LUC 6.2.22 4) Existing weeds and grasses are required to be removed from the chip-seal parking lot. Add notes. DS 2-06.6.1.E 5) Provide calculations for the expansion of the vehicular use area. The provisions of 3.7.1.2.B.1.b apply. Expansions of 25% or greater will result in a code compliance review for the entire. Additional comments may apply. 6) Identify the trees proposed for the planter boxes. If the trees are not from the drought tolerant plant list, provide calculations for the oasis areas. LUC 3.7.2.2.C 7) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 8) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 9) Provide additional photos of the trees that will be removed Additonal information is required to process the NPPO exception application. DS 2-15.2.0 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 09/11/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 09/13/2007 | 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 D07-0035 Mintec. Inc. 09/12/07 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-77-32 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant-Alvernon GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/10/07 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 ( ) 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 9/11/07 1. Please list rezoning conditions under the general notes section of the development plan. 2. Per rezoning condition #6.a., landscape plan is to illustrate interspersed landscaping on the parking lot. Generally, this means one canopy tree for every 4 vehicle parking spaces. Please submit a revised landscaping plan illustrating how this requirement will be met. |
| 09/14/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Plan shows improvements of 25% or greater and will require to provide a refuse enclosure for on site refuse storage and collection. DS 6-01.1.2 & 6-01.4.0 2. Provide refuse enclosure detail; A. Require minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area between the rear and side wall protectors and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B & 6-01.4.2.C.2 B. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed position. Show on detail and annotate, "positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors, Qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete." Recommend designing gates to open 180 degrees so they do not encroach within the required 14 ft x 40 ft approach to enclosure area. DS 6-01.4.1.C. Please correct on resubmittal. |
| 09/14/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 14, 2007 Paul Dominguez Archwest P.C. 1051 North Columbus Blvd. #103 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D07-0035 Mintec, Inc. Development Plan Dear Paul: Your submittal of August 10, 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, Engineering, Fire, Addressing, Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, ESD, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Previously approved Drainage 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: 622-9655 |