Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0033
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY | Approved | MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: January 05, 2010 TO: Patricia Gehlen, City of Tucson CDRC Manager FROM: Robert E. Flynt, Public Works Manager Development Review Division (Environmental Quality) SUBJECT: Tucson Eastside Service Center D08-0033 On behalf of the Department of Environmental Quality, the Development Plan has been reviewed for conformance with Pima County Department of Environmental Quality requirements for on-site wastewater disposal and air quality. Please note the following comments: 1. The Development Plan is approved. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6502. The Department’s Air Quality Control District requires that air quality activity permits be secured by the developer or prime contractor before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. REF/rf |
| 01/06/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Water Eastside Service Development Package (2nd Review) D08-0033 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 6, 2010 DUE DATE: January 13, 2010 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 July 16, 2009. 2. The following comments are based on the Draft Development Standards 2-01.0.0 DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE DOCUMENTS, dated 2-26-08. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 As "COMMERCIAL STORAGE" was added to "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES' number 3, provide the SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.10.1. Also at development designator 31 to "ZONING SETBACKS:, PROPOSED DEVELOMENT DESIGNATOR". 4. Clearly demonstrate on the plan how D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 is addressed for the parking area access lane (PAAL), loading zone and parking for the Distribution System (reservoir). D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 Provide some type of barriers to prevent a vehicular from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a Based on the information shown under "PARKING TABULATION" there are 77 vehicle parking spaces provided for the entire site. Based on a count of the vehicle parking spaces shown on the plan there are 151 shown on the plan, please clarify what the provided number of vehicle parking spaces is. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a On Detail C Sheet 16, STANDARD PARKING SPACE, clarify what the wheel stop adjacent to what appears to be a curb is for. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.c Based on three different uses as shown on the plan the Loading space calculation shown for the "WAREHOUSE" is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5.2 as called out under "PARKING TABULATION:, WAREHOUSE - BUILDING 1" the required size for the loading zone is 12 x 55 not 12 x 35. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.c There is a 12 x 55 loading space that appears to be locate within Building 3. Demonstrate on the plan how this area meets the requirement of D.S 3-05.2.1.4.a. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.d Until comment 5 above is clarified the bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. I you are going to break out each individual use then the bicycle parking will be base on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provide for each use. See LUC Section 3.3.3.5 for the minimum bicycle parking requirements. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.d Sheet 5, Keynote 35 states "8 - CLASS II BIKE RACKS". Per the information shown under "PARKING TABULATION" there are only five (5) provided, please clarify. 11. This comment was not addressed. See D.S. 2-09.4.1 for location of Class 2 bicycle parking. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.d The proposed location for the Class 2 bicycle parking does not meet the location requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.0. Review the revised D.S. 2-09. 12. Detail 15 Sheet 18 needs to addresses a. D.S. 2-09.5.1.A seventy-two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space (Figure 9). b. D.S. 2-09.5.1.B thirty-six (36) inch will be provide between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall or other obstruction measured from the end of the bicycle rack to the perpendicular wall. A minimum of thirty (30) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a parallel wall or other obstruction as measured from the side of the bicycle rack to the parallel wall (Figure 9). c. D.S. 2-09.5.2 A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured form the front of rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking spaces will be provided. d. Specify how lighting will be provided for the bicycle parking area, i.e. site lighting, exterior building lighting. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.d Provide an off-street bicycle parking detail; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.K For all proposed easements shown on the plan provide the recordation information, Docket & page, on the plan. 14. Keynote 6 sheet 5 calls out "8' HIGH MASONRY ACOUSTIC SCREEN WALL PER PC/COT STD. DT. 109. SEE PLAN FOR WALL LENGTH. This keynote does not point to anything on the plan. Demonstrate on the plan how this propose masonry wall meets the requirement of Rezoning Condition 9 shown on sheet 2. 15. Rezoning Condition 9 shown on sheet 2 requires a "10 FOOT HIGH ACOUSTICAL MASONRY WALL, ALONG THE LOADING DOCK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE OT ISOLATE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST. Demonstrate on the plan how this condition is met. 16. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D08-0033 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Water Eastside Service Grading Plan (2nd Review) T08BU01203 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 6, 2010 DUE DATE: January 13, 2010 GRADING PLAN 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. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development plan has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ T08BU01203 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Rezoning Section FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Water Eastside Service T08SA00244 Scenic Corridor Overlay (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 6, 2010 DUE DATE: January 13, 2010 COMMENTS: 1. LUC Sec. 2.8.2.4.A Label the required forty (40) foot buffer as "40 FOOT UNDISTURBED NATURAL BUFFER TO BE PRESERVED AND MAINTAINED IN IT'S NATURAL STATE". 2. All requested information will be provided on the development plan or as attachments to the development plan If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 01/13/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/14/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | 30% plans for the RTA Houghton Road widening project has been submitted for review. Coordination is needed between this development and the RTA Houghton project. Items such as drainage facilities, access points, grading, and utilities should be considered during the coordination process. Contact the Houghton Road Project Manager (MJ Dillard) at 791-5100 for coordination. |
| 01/14/2010 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 01/19/2010 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | CDRC Review Planning and Development Services Dept., Land Use Plan Review D08-0033, Tucson Water Eastside Service Center, 2nd submittal Comments Due: 1/13/10 Comments Submitted: 1/14/10 Items reviewed: Development Plan, Landscape Plan Relevant Items: C9-08-10, Annexation Conditions Comments: In general, staff acknowledges that the associated rezoning case was fairly complex, due in part to a lot of concern/input from neighbors. Some of those concerns resulted in specific rezoning conditions to address compatibility issues. Only one comment remains to be addressed, as follows: 1) Per rezoning condition # 9, a 10-foot high acoustical masonry wall is to be provided along west side of the depressed loading dock west of Building 1. Please revise the plans to show this, and clearly label it in the keynotes. Thank you. Reviewed by: J. Hershenhorn, 1/14/10 F:\Shardir\UPDfiles\Development Review\CASE_REVIEW\CDRC\2010 Cases\D08-0033a.doc |
| 01/20/2010 | JWILLIA4 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Due Date Case Number Project Address January 13, 2010 D08-0033 Tucson Water Eastside Service Comments: Approved; Subject to the following requirement, 1.) The Solid Waste enclosure must be clearly labeled on sheets showing the proposed Location of all enclosures. All enclosures must all be labeled for their usage If for “refuse” or “recycle” storage and collection. 2.) The notes for Detail-G on sheet 16 of 38 must be corrected to be in accordance with the revised Development Standard No. 6-01.0, revised December 31, 2010. |
| 01/25/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D08-0033 TUCSON WATER EASTSIDE SERVICE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 12/22/09 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. Delete all street directions (N, S, E, W) on the Location Map. 2. The Title Blocks need to be located on the lower right hand corner of every sheet. These include the development plan name, a brief legal description including the section, township and range and the file number. 3. Change Matchline See Sheet 5 to 6 on sheet 7. |
| 01/25/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 25, 2010 Kim Fernandez ABA-Architects PC 1001 N. Alvernon Way Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D08-0033 Tucson Water East Side Service Center Development Package Dear Kim: Your submittal of July 17, 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 set of 6 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Engineering, Zoning, Community Planning, Env Svcs, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP Plan (Engineering, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 881-7505 |
| 12/14/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/15/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | Project is a COT owned and operated property |
| 12/16/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 1 1. Scribner's error. At General Note 5, Please change "19194 ADAAG" to read 1994 "ADAAG". SHEET 2 2. For the two ramp details shown with flared sides: ADAAG, Section 4.7.5 states that flared sides are only required where pedestrains must walk across the ramp. In both ramp designs, pedestrians do not walk across the ramp. Please provide a turn in curb ramp similar to figure 12b. SHEET 4 3. The stairway is part of the accessible route for physically impared persons not in a wheelchair that desire to take the shortest route to and from the accessible parking to the public right of way. Please provide a note reference that the stair will comply with with ADAAG, Sections 4.9 including all required accessible handrails. 4. For the "L" shaped accessible route that is now defined as a ramp, please provide an ADAAG compliance note to Section 4.8 Ramps, including all required handrails as per Section 4.8.5 and not a barricade railing as per COT dtl 105. Revise all notes (#8) accordingly. Also, please note that landings shall be provided at the end of the maximum ramp run as required per Section 4.8.2. 5. Where the accessible route is designed to cross the East side of the loading dock (reference 13/D4), because this is a fork lift crossing area, please provide a marked crossing complete with detectable warnings as required by ADAAG, Sections 3.5 and 4.29.5. SHEET 5 6. Please clarify the purpose for the curb ramp located at the North West corner of building 2. It appears to led to no where. As a safety preference, a curb would be better for the vision impared to recognize an accessible route separation from the vehicle way. END OF REVIEW. |
| 12/22/2009 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan (D08-0033). PDSD Engineering does not recommend approval of the grading plan (T08BU01203). PDSD Engineering has no objection or adverse comment regarding approval of the Scenic Corridor Zone overlay submittal (T08SA00244). PDSD Engineering has no objection or adverse comment to the rezoning (C9-08-10) of this site to C-2. The revised Drainage Report is acceptable for approval. The SWPPP is conditionally approved upon adding the correct grading activity number (T08BU01203) to the plans. The following comments are offered: 1. Correct the Activity Number for Grading to T08BU01203 on all sheets. 2. Sheet 4 (S2): Please correct the Basis of Bearing to have a N&W or S&E bearing. 3. Sheet 10 (C2): Please correct the Basis of Bearing to have a N&W or S&E bearing. 4. Sheet 10 (C2): Correct the east-west slope (calculates as 3.8%, given as 2.4%) in the parking area north of the Building #1 Shade Structures. 5. Sheet 10 (C2): Per the given grades, there will be a 4'-6' (approx.) wall along the Building 1 loading dock adjacent to the sidewalk. Please consider increasing the width of the sidewalk to account for the lack of usability of the foot of sidewalk next to walls and buildings. 6. Sheet 10 (C2): Please check the TW grade at the SW corner of the septic trench area. As given it is below the adjacent channel. 7. Sheet 15 (D1): Please correct the pipe diameter on the southernmost pipe in Section 1. 8. Sheet 20 (U2): Please correct the Basis of Bearing to have a N&W or S&E bearing. 9. Sheet 20 (U2): The notation south of the retention basin indicates the headwall is to remain; Sheet 4 shows it to be removed. 10. Sheet 20 (U2): Please correct the Area and FFE for Building #1. 11. Sheet 21 (U3): Please correct the Area for Building #2 & Building #3. 12. Sheet 25 (SWPPP Details): Please add the Activity Number T08BU01203 to this sheet. 13. Sheet 26 (SWPPP Pre-Construction Plan): Please add the Activity Number T08BU01203 to this sheet. 14. Sheet 27 (SWPPP Existing Conditions): Please add the Activity Number T08BU01203 to this sheet. 15. Sheet 28 (L1): Please fill in the contour interval near the scale. 16. Sheet 30 (L3): Correct the d.g. sizing: 1/2" screened rock is called out in the landscape legend and 1/4" minus d.g. is called out in the "Maintenance 3.7.6". This division's recommendation is for use of the larger rock as experience has shown that the greater percentage of small fraction (i.e. clays) in the smaller d.g. tends to inhibit infiltration in water harvesting areas and retention basins. 17. Sheet 30 (L3): The civil plans call for landscape areas to be placed in the concrete within the channel along the northern perimeter (south of the existing Danforth reservoir). Please correlate the landscaping with the civil plans. 18. Sheet 31 (L4): Keynote #39 on the civil plans indicates 1:1 shotcrete with planter wells within the channel along the northern side of this sheet. Please correlate the landscaping with the civil plans. 19. Sheet 38 (L4): Please note that ponding will occur in only the westernmost few feet of the water harvesting areas located near the top of the sheet. The slope of the pavement (and, presumedly, the water harvesting area) is not conducive to holding much water. If water harvesting is desired, it would be preferable to have a series of flatter slopes within the water harvesting areas (possibly separated by low berms?) and curb openings along the northern side to admit drainage to the water harvesting area. 20. Please note that the water harvesting calculations are not in conformance with the Development Standard 10-03. If the requirement or desire is to demonstrate water harvesting in accordance with the development standard, the Et in the LID Table (upper left) should match Table A-2 in the Dev. Std. and the rainfall in collection/supply tables (left-center of sheet) should match Table A-5 of the dev. std. Matt Flick, P.E. Project Manager Planning & Development Services City of Tucson Phone: (520) 837-4931 Fax: (520) 791-4340 Please visit our web site: www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd |