Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0044
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/21/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/24/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/26/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | November 25, 2008 To: CARDELL ANDREWS II OLSSON ASSOCIATES 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: HANSON'S GOOD TO GO Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D08-044 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. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 12/02/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Hanson's Good To Go D08-0044 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 2, 2008 DUE DATE: December 18, 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 September 23, 2009. 2. If the bicycle parking is to remain as shown a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR) would be required. If a DSMR is approved the DSMR Number, Date of Approval, and any conditions of approval must be provided on the development plan, prior to approval of the development plan. My recommendation would be to move the bicycle parking to the northeast end of the building under the proposed building overhang. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed location of the Class 2 bicycle parking does not appear to meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 Proximity to Main Entrance. Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than 50 feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building. 3. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the 36" dimension from the rack to the building either on the detail or the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q As the proposed Class 2 bicycle racks are shown located perpendicular to the building wall provide the 36 inch minimum dimension between a rack and perpendicular wall, see D.S. 2-09.5.1.B. 4. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 5. 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\D08-0044dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/03/2008 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0044 HANSON’S GOOD TO GO/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 12/01/08 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: Delete directions from Irvington and Mission on Location Map. Delete administrative address information from sheet 1. (Pima County addressing drafts all addressing information on plans and in blank address block upon approval. |
| 12/04/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/05/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/12/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 12, 2008 SUBJECT: Hanson's Good To Go Development Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 137-11-429H, T155S R13E Sec03 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D08-0044 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan, Drainage Report (Olsson Associates, Inc., 09SEP08 revised 04NOV08) and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 03SEP08). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. The following items must still be addressed: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Development Plan to provide the dimensions for all existing sidewalks located along the public right-of-ways. Verify that the sidewalks meet the minimum width requirements for MS&R and public roadways. The proposed Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) #DS08-55 to reduce sidewalk widths along all roadways has been denied and the condition of denial is that all sidewalks must comply with the minimum width requirements per the referenced section. Remove General Note #21 with respect to the denied DSMR application. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan and details to label and dimension the required 6-foot wide sidewalk along both MS&R Streets (Irvington and Midvale). Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with ADA accessibility requirements. The proposed Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) #DS08-55 to reduce sidewalk widths along all roadways has been denied and the condition of denial is that all sidewalks must comply with the minimum width requirements per the referenced section. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for any handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise Detail C and N on Sheet 5 to clearly show the minimum parking space dimensions for all parking spaces adjacent to a proposed landscape planter. The planter must allow for the 2.5-foot overhang plus the minimum 15.5 feet from the back of parking to the front of curb. The detail shows 14.5 feet which is 1-foot shy of the required 15.5 feet. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension the required 5-foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lavender Mountain Place. All new development requires a new 5-foot sidewalk to be constructed within the public right-of-way. The proposed Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) #DS08-55 to reduce this width has been denied and the condition of denial is that all sidewalks must comply with the minimum width requirements per the referenced section. 14) Complied. 15) Acknowledged. For future reference the future SVT must be drawn in for the intersection of MS&R or local streets to clearly show that the proposed improvements do not encroach into the future SVT area. For this plan only the SVT does not need to be shown since the future SVT is required to be a pedestrian SVT with a 30-foot x 20-foot dimension and is clearly outside of the property boundaries. However per the Development Standards this is a requirement for Development Plan, Site Plans, Tentative Plat, etc review and must be labeled and dimensioned in plan view to show conformance with the Standards. 16) Complied. 17) DS Sec.11-01.9: Comment acknowledge however at a minimum the revise Development Plan must provide a statement or dimension in plan view and the details must show the required 2-foot setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, top of fill slopes, and associated drainage infrastructure (the grading plan will be required to label this clearly at all property line cross sections). The following comments reflect the areas found not to meet the required setback, additional areas may apply. a) Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-foot setback from property lines to top of fill slopes for all 3:1 (H: V) slopes for the proposed basin. Your comment is understood, however plan view and the details show that the top of fill slope extends right to the property line and to the public sidewalk location, revise. b) The 2-foot setback is required from the proposed basin outlet as shown in Detail I/5. The outlet of the basin (wall, weir, 6 inch orifice, and any associated erosion protection or energy dissipater) is required to be setback 2-feet from the property line. The outlet of the basin can not directly discharge onto the adjacent property and can not adversely affect adjacent site conditions (erosion, down cutting, etc). c) Revise the Development Plan and associated detail to clearly show that the proposed walls and footers are constructed entirely onsite. The proposed details do not clearly show the property lines and 2-foot setback. The footers appear to extend past the existing property line and onto the adjacent property. The wall and footers can be built up to the property line (walls only this does not apply to the basin weir), but must be labeled and dimensioned to clearly show that no encroachment or grading onto adjacent property will happen with the construction of the wall. d) If offsite improvements are proposed a notarized letter of approval is required from the adjacent property owner(s) and a construction, maintenance and access easement will be required prior to Development Plan approval. The recordation information for any easement must be labeled in plan view. 18) Complied. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 19) Complied. 20) Complied. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 21) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report evaluation or addendum that addresses the following requirements that were not fully addressed with this submittal: a) The soils report submitted provided a discussion for the required building setback from the proposed basin to be 15 feet or 4 times the designed maximum water depth, which ever is greater (4 x 1.7 feet = 6.8). The 15-foot setback is the greater setback dimension therefore the plans must be revised to show this setback from the basin to the building or a revised Geotechnical Report is required to reduce the setback dimension within the 1st Geotechnical Report submittal. b) The percolation rates within the proposed Geotechnical Report for the retention basin show that the drain down time exceeds the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. The infiltration test provided showed a minimum drain down time of 24.8 with the maximum rate of 39.4 hours, which exceeds the maximum 12 hour limit per the Development Standard. The location map in the Geotechnical Report (Page A-12) shows that the infiltration test locations where taken in the northeast corner of the site within the Public Right-of-Way and not at the proposed basin location. The proposed basin is located in the southwest corner of the site and the Geotechnical Engineer may recommend that new infiltration rates be taken at the correct basin location based on the proposed Development Plan to determine if this area has the same slow infiltration rates or if the area can meet the required maximum drain down time. If the Geotechnical addendum still shows that the drain down time can not be meet then the Drainage Report will have to provide a discussion that the basin weir and bleed pipe proposed will drain the basin within the 12 hour limit and conform to the Detention/Retention requirements for 5-year threshold retention. c) Complied. d) Complied. GRADING PLAN: 22) A grading permit application (T08BU02067) has been submitted for this project and comments will be posted under that activity for grading plan review comments. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Development Plan approval. 23) Please ensure that the grading plan will be consistent with the Development Plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. All drainage infrastructures must match the Drainage Report and Development Plan with respect to spot elevations, locations, dimensions, sizes, etc. Examples are; the Drainage Report calls out a 6-inch orifice bleed pipe with the basin outlet weir, the detail does not show this and plan view shows a 6-inch x 12-inch wall opening, which does not meet basin bleed off requirements, the top of fill slope elevation called out in Detail I differs from plan view. If the top of fill elevation is built per the detail the basin would not contain the 100-year flow volume and would cause ponding within the parking lot. A revised Drainage Report will be required to show that the ponding limits do not exceed the 1-foot requirement. These conflicts should be clarified on the Development Plan. 24) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) is applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development has been submitted with the grading plan and will be reviewed under that activity. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan, revised, Geotechnical Report (or addendum) and Drainage Report (if applicable) that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/23/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 23, 2008 Cardell Andrews II Olsson Associates 3025 West Ina Road Tucson, Arizona 85741-2107 Subject: D08-0044 Hanson's Good to Go Development Plan Dear Cardell: Your submittal of September 24, 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 5 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (TEP, Zoning, Engineering, Addressing, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical 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: 777-3872 dp-resubmittal |
| 12/23/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#204001 December 11, 2008 Olsson Associates Attn: Cardell Andrews II 3025 W Ina Rd Tucson, Arizona 85741 Dear Mr. Andrews II: SUBJECT: Hanson’s Good To Go D08-0044 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted November 25, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Our facility maps show that we have underground facilities within the development. Customer to have them located and shown on the prints. If the facilities exist outside the development, customer need to show location of those faclilities and resubmit the plans.. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Mike Kaiser at 918-8244 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: DSD_CDRC@Tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |