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: CORE REVIEW
Permit Number - D08-0025
Review Name: CORE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/05/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 2, 2008 To: TIM M. O'NEILL O'NEILL ENGINEERING, INC 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: GOODMANS INTERIOR STRUCTURES, WAREHOUSE ADDITION Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-025 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: If no new sewer is proposed then add the following General Note: THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. Sheet 3: Show the existing sewer on site and how it is connected to the public sewer line. 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. |
| 05/06/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approv-Cond | The FDC and Fire Riser are given the wrong numbers on Sheet DVP2. |
| 05/07/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/15/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Goodman's Interior Structures D08-0025 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 15, 2008 DUE DATE: May 30, 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 April 30, 2009. 2) D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.3 The proposed use is not correct. List the proposed use as "BUSINESS SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT". 3) The existing warehouse & showroom is called out as two (2) stories. Provide a breakdown of the square footage for both floors along with the use, also provide the square footage of office and showroom. 4) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 List the D08-0025 development plan number in the lower right corner of the plan. 5) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Add a note to the plan stating that the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. 6) D.S. 2-05.2.3.B If applicable show all existing easements on the plan along with the recordation information, location, width and the purpose. 7) D.S. 2-05.2.4.B All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing. Provide the existing zoning for the east and west parcels. 8) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.G If applicable show all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) on the plan and provide dimensions and labels as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 9) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.I Zoning was not able to verify building setbacks as building height was not provided. Once the building height has been provided the setbacks can be verified. As this is adjacent to Major Street & Route the building setbacks are measured from the back of curb. Provide building setback dimensions on the plan from the back of curb. 10) D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Once the overall square footage has been verified, see comment 3, zoning can verify the loading space requirement. 11) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Zoning acknowledges that there are ample vehicle parking spaces provided but the parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4 WHOLESALING USE GROUP, Business Supply and Equipment: One (1) space per two thousand (2,000) sq. ft. of storage area for the first twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. of storage area plus one (1) space per ten thousand (10,000) sq. ft. of storage area for over twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. of storage area. This said until comment 3 is addressed the exact number of required parking spaces cannot be verified. 12) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide the required and provided number of accessible vehicle parking spaces within the parking calculation. 13) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. 14) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Per D.S. 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 said the parking space located next to the relocated gate, called out under keynote 13, is required to be 10'-0" wide. 15) 16) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Revise the bicycle parking calculation to reflect the required and provided Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle parking. Per Section 3.3.4, WHOLESALING USE GROUP, Business Supply and Equipment:, eight (8) percent - ninety (90) percent Class 1 and ten (10) percent Class 2. This said four (4) Class 1 and one (1) Class 2 bicycle parking space are required. 17) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Provide a detail for both Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle parking on the plan 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. Be sure to review the revised D.S. 2-09 for bicycle parking requirements. Zoning acknowledges that there is Class 2 bicycle parking called out under keynote 4. It does not appear that the existing Class 2 meets the requirements of the revised D.S. 2-09. 18) D.S. 2-05.2.4.T Per LUC Section 3.4.3.4 Use of Loading Area. A loading space shall be used only for the purpose it is intended and shall not be used for the repair or dismantling of vehicles or in any other manner that would interfere with the purpose for which the space is provided. That said the proposed location of the refuse containers will not work. The loading spaces may not be used to access the refuse containers. 19) D.S. 2-05.2.4.W Zoning acknowledges the existing sign called out under keynote 18. This sign is located within the sight-visibility-triangle (SVT). Provide documentation that shows this sign was permitted and allowed within the SVT. 20) Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 21) 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\D08-0025dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 05/16/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#197449 May 16, 2008 Tim O’Neill O’Neill Engineering, LLC 2001 W. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85015 To Whom It May Concern: : SUBJECT: Goodmans Interior Structures – Warehouse Addition D08-0025 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 14, 2008. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. It appears that the transformer may have to be relocated . 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, offsite and electrical load plans. 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 Please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Alberta Adrian Office Specialist Design/Build aa Enclosures cc: City of Tucson, (Email only) Chuck Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 05/19/2008 | 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: D08-0025 GOODMANS INTERIOR STRUCTURES/CORE REVIEW DATE: 5/16/08 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. |
| 05/21/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 2) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for projects where landscaping is permitted in the public right-of-way: All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities within the public right-of-way. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on site. 3) Submit a native plant preservation plan. LUC 3.8.4.2 Preservation requirements from previous approvals on the site may impose additional preservation and mitigation requirements. Provide a copy of any prior Native Plant Preservation approvals for reference, if applicable. 4) 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 5) Revise the landscape to include a maintenance schedule per DS 2-072.2.A.4 including: A) Pruning schedules to show that plant material will maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearances or that the material will establish opaque hedge screens B) Replacement criteria, should plant material not survive. C) Replacement or upkeep maintenance schedules for inert ground cover materials. D) Maintenance schedules for exterior hardscape materials. E) Maintenance and replacement schedules for irrigation systems. 6) Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations: a. Square footage of the site. b. Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees. c. Square footage of all street landscape borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. d. Dimension length and width of landscape borders. 7) Define keynote 'L' as used on sheet DVP2. 8) Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. 9) Provide screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I for the areas north of the driveways on Business Center Drive and Benan Venture Drive. 10) Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06 |
| 05/29/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/02/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0025 Goodmans Interior Structures 05/29/08 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-79-37 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Santa Cruz COMMENTS DUE BY: 5/30/08 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 () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXX) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 5/30/08 Page Two Urban Planning and Design Comments D08-0025 Goodmans Interior Structures May 29, 2008 1. Please add rezoning conditions to the General Notes section of the plan. |
| 06/06/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. DPV2 - The required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approch to the solid waste storage area is in conflict with the loading area. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 2. No detail of storage area/enclosure. Refer to DS 6-01.4.0. Ensure to provide a 10 ft x 10 ft clear service area for each container (refuse and recycle) between the rear and side wall protection and the front gates. 3. Gates must be equipped with positive locking for securing them in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4 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 |
| 06/19/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Development Plan Engineering Review submittal PROJECT: Goodmans New Warehouse LOCATION: 3925 N BUSINESS CENTER DR, Ward 1 FEMA PANEL: 1619K X-shaded REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0025 SUMMARY: The Development Plan package including development plan, drainage report, Landscape sheets, title report, rezoning conditions, and copy of old development plan was submitted and reviewed. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-05.2.4.H, 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Address the following drainage comments: a) Provide discussion in the drainage report stating that the site is within the FEMA Zone X-shaded for 500-year Flood Area. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U: Indicate graphically on the Development Plan, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Specifically, explain in the Drainage Report how project conforms to rezoning conditions items 1(b)(1) & (2), and 2. c) Explain existing and proposed FFE's for addition. d) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Show on an exhibit the ponding area of the truck dock area, and the ponding limits for the proposed basin. e) Clarify truck dock storage volume of 4,400 cuft since pavement elevations show breakout toward the west entrance/exit at elevation 71.35. f) Provide statement in the report for the gallon per minute rate that is expected for the pumps. g) It is imperative that drain down time is achieved within 24 hours per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.b. Further explain number of pumps and expected drain down time for truck dock area. h) On drainage exhibit and Development Plan, provide invert at scupper inlet for basin outlet area. i) For remaining volume in basin below outlet invert elevation, provide drain down time based on a geotechnical assessment for infiltration for the proposed west basin. j) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: On the Development Plan and on the drainage exhibit, draw locations and label Q100 for all off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. k) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Dimension building - basin setback line on Development Plan and discuss in report the basin setback required based on geotechnical report. 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A, 10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Submit a bound copy of the soils report that discusses suitability and feasibility of the project. The report shall discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design, as well as proposed solutions for any unusual soils, or other geographic hazards to life, health, or property. 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. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. Geotechnical recommendations for building or pavement setbacks from basins / ponding areas shall be provided. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.C: All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes. Also, check sheet DVP-3 for overlapping text to assure legibility. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.G: The brief legal description should be included in the title block information, provided, preferably in the lower right corner of the sheet. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.H: Label contour interval with north arrow on sheets with topography. Label contour lines on planview sheet DVP-3. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.8: Since the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or one that has been recorded which required review of a development plan, provide the subdivision name and case number (D08-0025), preferably in the lower right corner of the plan. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Provide site boundary information on one sheet of the Development Plan as partial information is shown on some sheet plan views. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.D: Show location of nearest fire hydrant on plans. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: The local benchmark shall be shown on a plan view for the grading plan. 10) DS Sec.3-01.10.Figure 6: Label proposed dimensions and radii at north new truck entrance. These appear acceptable but need clarification. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.2, E, &L: Label existing streets' names, existing and future right-of-way & pavement widths, curbs, existing sidewalk widths, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. Label existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Clarify on plan and label sidewalk along Benan Venture Drive. Clarify all HC ramps to comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled; revise alignment of HC ramp at south side of northwest entrance area to match sidewalk connection. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Dimension all loading zones. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Show sight visibility triangles on Landscape plan sheets and assure no conflict with proposed vegetation. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Dimension or provide detail for the refuse collection area. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U: Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts such as sight visibility triangles. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.X: Address the following comments for the Landscape plan sheets: a) Show SVT information on the landscape document sheet L2 to assure not conflicts with vegetation. b) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: 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. c) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Delineate basin access on sheet L3. Show access on sheet L2 that no proposed vegetation will block access. 19) DS Sec.2-05.3.2: This project will require a grading plan submittal for review prior to construction. With the grading plan submittal, provide a construction access diagram to indicate safety pre-cautions for access to the site by the public and to ensure separate access for construction activity. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Development Plan, soils report, revised Drainage Report, revised landscape sheets, and a response letter. You may schedule a meeting to go over comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 06/20/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 20, 2008 Tim O'Neill O'Neill Engineering, LLC 2001 West Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Subject: D08-0025 Goodmans Interior Structures- Warehouse Addition Development Plan Dear Tim: Your submittal of May 1, 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Fire, Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Soils 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: (602) 242-5722 |