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 - CORE REVIEW
Permit Number - D08-0010
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - CORE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/30/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/09/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 6, 2008 To: Peter Salonga Oracle Engineering 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: Eastpointe Commercial Center, Lots 1-5 Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D08-010 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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2nd Request. 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. 2nd Request Sheet 1 and 3: 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. 2nd Request Sheet 2: The symbols shown in the Legends do not match what is shown on this sheet. Sheet 2: Show clearly which of the BCS are proposed and which are existing for all of the BCS shown on this plan. The BCS should include length and slope and should be clearly marked as private. Sheet 2: The 6”BCS shown for Bldg#3 will have to be connected to the public sewer with a proposed public manhole. Sheet 2: The construction plan# and MH IMS #’s shown for the public sewer south and east of Bldg #4 is not shown correctly. Check Map Guide for the correct I.D. #’s. Sheet 3: Show the private BCS for each building as proposed or existing and include the slope/size and length. Sheet 3: The sewer line is called out as private per G-2003-110. This is a public sewer line and should be called out as public not private. 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 $117.00 (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. |
| 06/11/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to include all of the individual plantings for the landscape borders that were previously installed or required. 2) Revise the landscape plan to carry forward any applicable (Lots 1 & 3) native plant preservation or mitigation requirements. Include a summary statement on the landscape plan for Native Plant Preservation compliance. Include information about preservation of protected plants near the boundaries of the site (protected plants were noted along the northern boundary near the proposed retaining wall). 3) Revise the plans to include details for the water harvesting areas. LUC 3.7.4.3 4) Submit a copy of the previously approved landscape and NPP plans for reference. 5) Provide canopy trees for the vehicular use area per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a |
| 06/12/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D08-0010 EASTPOINT COMMERCIAL CENTER/REVISED CORE REVIEW DATE: 6/11/08 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 06/13/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Eastpoint Commercial Center - Core Review D08-0010 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 13, 2008 DUE DATE: June 27, 2008 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. 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 January 23, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a backup spur, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.D, at the west end of the south parking area on Lot 1. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.D Back-Up Spur. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii, and will have a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any un-surfaced areas. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. When the last space in a bay of parking is wider than eight and one-half (8½) feet, the back-up spur can be reduced in size, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. This said due to the wall shown on the plan there is 3'-0" required from the wall to the backup spur and then the 3'-0" spur. This comment applies to the west end of the north parking area also. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 A Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR) is required to reduce the required two (2) feet setback between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the development plan. Once approved provide the DSMR number, date approved, what was approved and any conditions required on the development plan. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The parking calculation is not correct. Under FIRST FLOOR DAYCARE/OFFICE 935 SF/ 200 does not equal 16.5 spaces, revise the calculation. Also Zoning acknowledges that this comment was not brought up on the first review and that it most likely will not change the parking calculation but 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. The vehicle and bicycle parking calculation under Notes and Calculations, Sheet 3 of 5, should include calculations for the entire site. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The following items where not addressed on the Class 2 bicycle parking detail: materials for lighting, the number of bicycles it supports, and the dimensions that are provided do not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The new location shown for the Class 2 bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located along the front side of the building. 7. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 8. 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\D08-0010dp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/18/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Move added enclosure located at the NE corner so closer for user access and provide a pedestrian pathway for safe access to enclosure without trafficing through parking lot. Ensure to retain the required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclsoure area with a continous flow for collection vehicle. DS 6-01.4.1.C & 6-01.4.1.H. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/01/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/09/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 9, 2008 Peter Salonga Oracle Engineering Group, Inc. 199 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: D08-0010 Eastpoint Commercial Center Development Plan Dear Peter: Your submittal of May 30, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, ESD, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, 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: 292-6144 dp-resubmittal |