Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0003
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/09/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. DS 10-01.4 (P.78 of SDRM) The plans require revision to comply with Development Standards. 2) Revise the Development plan to indicate appropriate barriers per DS 3-05.2.3.C at the perimeter of the paved vehicular use areas. If storage areas are also vehicular use areas they require surfacing per LUC 3.3.7.3. 3) Provide screening for outdoor storage areas in compliance with LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Resubmittal of all Plans is required. |
| 01/12/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 07, 2009 To: JOHN EVANS JAE Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division ( Wastewater) Subject: OLD VAIL INDUSTRIAL CENTER Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D08-003 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 2 .Provide length , slope and invert elevations at the connecting points for each each BCS. You may show this in a tabular form. Sheet 2: Provide a Cleanout at the 90 deg. turning point of the BCS from Bldg. 5. 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. The next submittal of this project will be the third 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 you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 01/12/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | ES approves of this DP with the following conditions: 1. Provide complete dimensions for identifying the spacing of the post barricades (bollards). Rear bollards - each bollard on either side of the center rear bollard should be 4 ft to center of rear bollard. Side front bollards should be 2 ft to center from front gates and rear side bollards should be 4 ft to center of front side bollard. Please include as noted above. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/14/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/14/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Old Vail Rd Industrial Center D08-0003, T15S, R15E, SECTION 21 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Report on December 12, 2008 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. According to Rita Ranch Master Drainage Report and the Drainage Report for Rita Ranch #28 (a nearby project), the subject is impacted by offsite drainage. The 100-year offsite runoff that impacts the site appears to be at least 300-cfs and it enters the site at the southern end of the parcel (near the railroad tracks). The project is required to accommodate this runoff by installing a drainage channel that conveys the runoff and become part of a channel that shall be built by every development in that area, to convey their runoffs to the existing regional detention basin. Revise the drainage report and quantify the amount of offsite runoff and demonstrate how this project will accommodate it. 2. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on Figure 4. 3. Show all 100-year flood limits for all runoffs of 100-cfs or more on the drainage exhibits. The buildings finished floor elevations shall be based on the regulatory runoff water surface elevation. Development Plan: 1. Provide the Basis of Bearing tie to one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 2. It appears that there is an existing utility easement that traverses the property across the middle. Buildings 2 and 6 are proposed on top the said easements, which is not acceptable. Verify if the easement is still needed and revise the plan and the Title Report as needed. 3. Show existing 100-year flood limits for all runoffs of 100-cfs or more as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I.). 4. Show all proposed easements as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 5. Add a general note that addresses the drainage structures maintenance responsibility, the frequency of maintenance activities and who will be conducting the maintenance inspections. Please be advised that a registered civil engineer shall be responsible for the inspections and the preparation on the required maintenance report. 6. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 7. Provide all applicable building setback lines including erosion hazard setback, retention basin setbacks and sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.). Landscape Plan: 1. Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Drainage Report |
| 01/16/2009 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 16, 2009 John A. Evans John A. Evans and Associates, Inc. 5450 North Sabino Highlands Place Tucson, Arizona 85749 Subject: D08-0003 Old Vail Industrial Center Development Plan Dear John: Your submittal of December 12, 2008 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 (Wastewater, ESD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL EXPIRE ON JANUARY 23, 2009. A WRITTEN EXTENSION REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CDRC OFFICE PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THIS PLAN. FEES WILL BE APPLICABLE. 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: 749-1521 dp-resubmittal |
| 12/12/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/16/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/23/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0003 Old Vail Industrial Center Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 12/23/2008 DUE DATE: 1/13/09 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 01/23/08. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 In note number 2 of the general notes list the proposed use as follows: "General Manufacturing "35" subject to: Sec. 3.5.5.1" Per LUC Sec. 3.5.5.1.H. Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall not be located in a street perimeter yard. This code requirement applies to the areas along a line for the north side for buildings 1 and 4 across the entire lot. (Street perimeter yard setback). Per response comments the outdoor storage areas surfacing materials (paving, chip sealed, or asphalt millings) do not match what is indicated on the details (gravel). Clarify. 3. DS2-02.2.3.B This comment has not been fully addressed. The indicated 60' utility easement, located approximately in the center of the property, must either be abandoned (provide docket and page recording information for the abandonment) or provide documentation from all utility companies granting permission for the building of structures with in the easement. Provide a copy of the easement modification, indicated in the response comments, for review. 4 . Per DS 3-05.2.1.3 When the side(s) of a parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport, the required width for the space is ten (10) feet to provide extra width to allow passengers to enter and exit the vehicle on the side where the barrier exists. This code requirement will apply to all parking spaces where the side of the parking space is adjacent to the proposed fence. Clearly indicate the location of all gates and whether the gates are swinging or sliding (swinging gates will block parking spaces), and man gates ( man gates will be required for pedestrian circulation path from required sidewalks , see later comment on required sidewalks). Add a note stating that all gates are to remain open during business hours. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.K Review DS 2-08 for required onsite pedestrian circulation criteria. DS 2-08.5.1 Please dimension all sidewalks within site. Minimum width for sidewalks is four (4) feet and meets all requirements per Development Standard 2-08.5.1 Clearly indicate the width of all crosswalks. Crosswalks must be a minimum 4' width and must be striped. DS 2-08.4.1.B, DS 2-08.5.1.A & D A striped 5' pedestrian refuge will be required located in the nonpublic areas adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located in the nonpublic areas. The striped pedestrian refuge areqas must connect to the pedestrian circulation path. Such as on the east and west side of building 4 and the south sides of buildings 2 and 6. DS 2-08.4.1.C A sidewalk will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. (See Figure 2.) Including parking spaces located in the nonpublic areas. A minimum 4' sidewalk connecting to the pedestrian circulation path is required along the north sides of buildings 1 and 7, the north and east sides of building 3, the north and west sides of building 5 6. DS 2-05.2.4.M The square footage of each building in the parking calculation portion of this plan does not match the square footage of buildings indicated on the plan. Clarify. 7. DS 2-05.2.4 Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide, as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. See LUC Sec. 3.4.1 for requirements. In general note #4, revise the loading zones required to 7 and the provided to 7. Indicate the required size of the loading zones as 12' X 55". Indicate maneuverability in and out of the loading zones. See engineering comments. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.P Indicate on the plan the location of all provided wheel stops for the parking spaces. Provide the number of required and provided parking spaces per LUC Sec. 3.3.4. Required parking spaces are based on the proposed use or uses. Revise notes. In a General Manufacturing use the outdoor storage area (yard area)is not required to be included in the parking space requirements. Revise parking calculations. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. See LUC Sec. 3.3.4 for the number of required bicycle parking spaces. Revise general note #4. The number of required bicycle parking spaces for a general manufacturing use is 8% of the total number of provided parking spaces with 90% being class one and 10% being class two bicycle parking spaces. The provided calculations are incorrect. Revise. If class one bicycle parking spaces are to be located within the buildings clearly indicate the location of each locker on the plan. Provide a detail of the class one bicycle parking locker clearly indicating type, size and access aisle. The provided class two bicycle parking detail is required to be a minimum of 5' in width. (30" clear on each side of the rack). The location of the indicated class two bicycle parking spaces on the plan does not appear to be wide enough for the required 5' width. Clarify. 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. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2) Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. 10. Provide blowup detail of handicap ramp and building entrance doors at buildings 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. This is to verify the required 4' landing at the top of a handicap ramp (doors interfering with the landing) as well as door clearances from each other. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0003-2dp.doc |