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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0049
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/17/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please indicate existing fire hydrant location(s), with dimensions to buildings and/or property lines. Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (section 508) for spacing and location requirements. Plans indicate existence of security gate(s). Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (Sections 503.6.1 and 503.6.2) for requirements. Indicate methods of compliance on plans. |
| 10/23/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/23/2008 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0049 Red Cross Regional Distribution ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Co9-82-106 & C15-88-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: November 13, 2008 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: October 21, 2008 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS D08-0049 Red Cross Regional Distribution Per annexation Ordinance No. 7090, condition number 4, properties zoned I-1® shall be limited to a height of 39 feet. Please add this note to the General Notes Section of the plan. |
| 10/28/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC development plan case number (D08-0049) and any other related case numbers such as for rezoning, annexation, Board of Adjustment cases, to all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 2) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of 12 point (0.12") or greater in size. Revise any text on sheets G-1 and N-1, including the street names in the location map, to meet this minimum standard. DS 2-05.2.1.C 3) Add the symbol for the trees to be Removed From Site (the circle with an "X") to the legend. 4) In the plant inventory table, one velvet mesquite (plant i.d. number 8) is listed as being Removed From Site but is shown on the aerial photo (sheet N-2) with a symbol indicating it will be Preserved in Place. Revise native plant preservation plan to be consistent. 5) Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. In areas where a required landscape border falls within the vehicular use area, up to 50% of the canopy trees may be counted towards both the minimum parking lot canopy tree requirement and the landscape border canopy tree requirement per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.b. Add to the landscape plan a calculation for the number of required/provided canopy trees for the vehicle use area per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.c. Revise plan to show that all parking spaces fall within 40 feet of a canopy tree trunk. 6) Several of the trees within the vehicular use area to the east of the building are located within pedestrian access areas/sidewalks near the accessible ramps. Revise to locate trees outside of the pedestrian circulation routes. 7) All screening must be shown on the landscape plan. A 6-foot high masonry screen wall (keynote 9) is labeled on the development plan (sheet C1.1) within the landscape border along Hemisphere Loop but it is not detailed on the landscape plan and the landscape plan/ buffer yard schedule indicates only a 30-inch vegetative screen is to be provided. Clarify an revise plans to be consistent. 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 per 3.7.3.2.B.3. Revise wall location to meet code. In addition, screens, whether required or not, are to be located so that the landscaping is visible from the street per DS 2-06.3.7.B.2 8) Landscape borders along parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic and parked vehicles must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B. Provide protection for street landscape borders. 9) Revise general note 2 on sheet G-1 to be correct regarding the existing zoning for the site (I-1 rather than I-2). 10) Revise general note 5 on sheet G-1 to be correct regarding property frontage. 11) Refer to DS 2-07.2.2 and DS 2-06.5.4 for the specific content required in the following elements of the landscape plan: Maintenance Schedule, Grading Information, Construction Details. Revise landscape plan to include required content and specifications. DS 2-07.0 12) The native plant preservation plan is required to include grading limits. Delineate the grading limits more clearly on the plan to verify that proposed preserved plants can be retained in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.C |
| 10/28/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: American Red Cross - Regional Blood Distribution Center D08-0049 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 28, 2008 DUE DATE: November 13, 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 October 15, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 Place the development plan number D08-0049 in the lower right hand corner of the plan. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 Revise General Note 3 to read "ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE "34". 4. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 General note 4, remove "SPECIAL EXCEPTION:" from the note and revise the note to read "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA: SEC 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE." 5. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B & D.S. 2-05.2.4.G If applicable show all existing and proposed easements on the plan along with the recordation information, location, width, and purposed of the easement. All proposed easements should state whether they are public or private. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Show the future curb location for Palo Verde Road on the plan and dimension, see engineering comments. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A It appears that some type of lot split is proposed. Sheets C1.1 and C1.3 appear to show forty seven (47) of parcel 140-29-202A as part of this project, please clarify. If a lot split is proposed it must be processed and approved by The City of Tucson prior to approval of this development plan. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Sheet C1.1, provide backup spur dimensions for the proposed security gate called out under Keynote 22, both the east and west side. See D.S. 3-05.2.2.D for requirements. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Sheet C1.1, provide a setback dimension from the "PRIVATE ENTRANCE (TRUCK ACCESS) parking area access lane (PAAL) to the proposed "6' MASONARY SCREEN WALL" called out under keynote 9 both the east and west side of the PAAL. See D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 for requirements. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Provide overall dimensions for the proposed structure on the plan. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide wheel stops for all vehicle parking spaces adjacent to a sidewalk with a width of less than 6'-6". See D.S. 2-08.5.1.A, D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 & C.2 Sheet C1.0 Southeast parking spaces require wheel stops or barriers or the sidewalk is required to be six (6) foot six (6) inches wide. Sheet C1.1 Parking spaces located north of the east/west running sidewalk require wheel stops or barriers or the sidewalk is required to be six (6) foot six (6) inches wide. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Sheet C1.0, the northern most parking spaces require wheel stops or barriers to prevent vehicles from damaging adjacent landscape. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Sheet C1.0, the parking space shown in the northeast corner appears to encroach into the sight visibility triangle (SVT). Provide a wheel spot to prevent the vehicle from encroaching into the SVT. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Sheet C1.1, provide a dimension from the proposed "6' MASONARY SCREEN WALL" called out under keynote 9, to the parking spaces. If this dimension is less than two (2) foot six (6) inches, wheel stops or barriers are required. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Sheet C1.1, northeast corner of the parking area, provide a dimension from the proposed "6' MASONARY SCREEN WALL" called out under keynote 9, to the adjacent parking spaces. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Sheet C1.1, eastern most parking spaces. There are three (3) vehicle parking spaces just west of the "PRIVATE ENTRANCE (TRUCK ACCESS) PAAL" that are perpendicular to the "6' MASONARY SCREEN WALL" called out under keynote 9. Either wheel stops or barriers are required or a clear space of two (2) foot six (6) inches is required between the parking space and the wall. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a width dimension for the island located between the parking spaces and the "PRIVATE ENTRANCE (TRUCK ACCESS) PAAL". If this dimension is less than of two (2) foot six (6) inches, wheel stops or barriers are required for the parking spaces. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The "ACCESSIBLE PARKING" calculation is not correct. Per the International Building Code (IBC) Table 1106.1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES when 172 vehicle parking spaces are provided 6 must be accessible. Also revised the accessible calculation to include the number of van accessible required and provided. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Clarify on the details how lighting will be provided to both the Class 1 & Class 2 bicycle parking areas. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.U It is not clear how rezoning condition #17 has been complied with. Demonstrate on the plan where the 50 foot buffer is provided along the north property line. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.V If applicable show the location and type of postal service to be provided. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W If applicable indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 23. Sheet C1.1 there is a keynote 26, "NEW ELEC. TRANSFORMER" called out pointing to the east/west sidewalk, please clarify. 24. Sheet C1.1 there are two (2) boxes shown, one at the south end of the island shown in the center of the parking area, and one at the northeast corner of the parking, between the "6' MASONARY SCREEN WALL" and the parking space located to the south. Please clarify what this box is. 25. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 26. 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\D08-0049dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 10/28/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project. -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 10/30/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 29, 2008 To: SCOTT EISENFELD GLHN ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, 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: AMERICAN RED CROSS REGIONAL BLOOD DISTRIBUTION CENTER Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-049 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. 1. Sheet 1: Add a General Note: 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. 2. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. 3. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 4. Sheet 6: Demonstrate access to MH#4847-09 along the public sewer easement from Hemisphere Loop has not been hindered with the curb and rip-rap work proposed by this plan. 5. Sheet 6: You are proposing a water outlet directly fronting MH#4847-09. A water-tight manhole cover and concrete collar will be required for this existing public manhole. 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. |
| 10/30/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No comment. |
| 10/30/2008 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D08-0049, RED CROSS REGIONAL DIST.: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 417 PM Peak: 62 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 11/05/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#204710 November 5, 2008 Dear Mr. Eisenfeld : SUBJECT: Red Cross Regional District D08-0049 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 3, 2008. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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 Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc:M. Kaiser |
| 11/05/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 5 NOVEMBER 2008 D08-0049/RED CROSS REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. ACCESSIBLE PARKING DETAIL 4/CD1.2 1. IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106.5; ICC 117.1, SECTION 503. 2. SURFACE SLOPES FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 1:48, ICC 117.1, SECTION 502.5. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES REFLECTING COMPLIANCE. 3. DETECTABLE WARNINGS (TRUNCATED DOMES) ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PARKING SITUATION, ONLY FOR MARKED CROSSINGS. 4. SHOW LOCATION OF PARKING SIGN. B. PROVIDE SIGN DETAIL. SHOW LARGER SIGN TO BE 7' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND PARKING FINE IS NOW $532.00. MOUNT "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN BELOW MAIN SIGN. C. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS, PARKING FACILITIES POINT AND TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 402 1. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES THROUGH OUT ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FINISHED SURFACES TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SLOPES AS REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3 2. SHOW AND PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC R.O.W. PEDESTRIAN WAY. D. VERIFY ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AS REQUIRED PER 2006 IBC SECTION 1105 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 302 AND 303. E. CURB AND SIDE WALK RAMPS AND MARKED CROSSINGS: 1. INSURE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AT BOTH ENDS OF ALL MARKED CROSSINGS, AS PER ICC, SECTIONS 406.12 AND 406.14. 2. PLEASE PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF CURB AND SIDE WALK RAMPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406, MARKED CROSSINGS AND CURB RAMPS. LARGE SCALE DETAIL TO SHOW ALL DIMENSIONS, SLOPES, RAMPS, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS. F. ALL RIGHT OF WAY RAMPS ARE TO COMPLY WITH COT DOT 207. ALL RAMPS WITH IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LINES ARE TO COMPLY WITH 2006 IBC, CHAPTER 11 AND ICC ANSI 117.1 2003 EDITION. 1. PLEASE CHANGE ALL REFERENCE NOTES TO THAT EFFECT. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/13/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: American Red Cross Development Plan submittal Engineering Review LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 9, Ward 5 SUBDIVISION: Tucson International Gateway Center lots 7, 8, and portion of 9 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0049 SUMMARY: The Development Plan, drainage report, and landscape plans were reviewed. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan review only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-05.2.3: Provide a revised drainage report that addresses the following: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Consider upstream, adjacent project drainage data to be referenced in this project's drainge report. Update Q100 and headwater condition for more current/conservative flowrate entering Palo Verde box culvert. Re-check minimum FFE. Update Figure 5, and sections 1.4, 3.1, and 3.4 of original report and Figure 6 of addendum. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.2: For soils that show poor infiltration, some retention volume may be waived, while maintaining a provision for water harvest areas. Address the following: i) It is imperative that low-flow bleeder pipes are provided for this basin. Show on plan and drainage exhibit. ii) Revise section 3.3 in the report to provide discussion regarding retention impact of D soils, and if retention is requested to be waived, provide geotechnical discussion for subsurface condition. See DS Sec.10-01.2.2. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: Label Q100 on planview for the west channel for Q100 entering and exiting site. Label headwater at existing box culvert. d) Provide a discussion regarding change in sediment transport from proposed development and its effect to downstream drainage systems. e) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: A drainage maintenance list will need to be provided in Drainage Report - at minimum at grading plan review stage. f) Add project address to report cover sheet, with case number D08-0049. 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: A Geotechnical Report is referenced on sheet CD1.2. Provide a geotechnical report discussing suitability and feasibility of soils for proposed project. The report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. 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. Show how infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. Assure minimum pavement structural recommendations and hydro-collapsing soils statement is provided. a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.2: D soils are indicated from drainage report. Please be aware that for soils that show poor infiltration, some retention volume may be waived, while maintaining a provision for water harvest areas. Address the following: i) It is imperative that low-flow bleeder pipes are provided for this basin. Show on plan and a drainage exhibit. ii) If retention is requested to be waived, provide geotechnical discussion for subsurface condition. See DS Sec.10-01.2.2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U, 2-05.1.3: Provide explanation of status, or/and indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, compliance with rezoning condition 13 A-D on the plan, and explain how they are addressed in the response letter. Further comments may be forthcoming. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The applicable case number is D08-0049; provide at lower right hand corner of the sheets. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: On sheets C1.0- C1.3 of the Development Plan, assure all proposed easements (sewer, access, telephone or other utility easements, etc.) are dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes. 6) Address the following comments for sheets C1.0 and C1.2: a) Provide cross section for 18-in CMP pipe clarifying mitre at entrance and pavement grades at this location. b) Provide scuppers for roof drainage crossing sidewalk / pedestrian areas. 7) Address the following comments for sheets C1.1 and C1.3: a) There is an easement like delineation on sheet C1.1. Clarify this dashed line running north south at east side of project. b) Keynote 26 appears to be mislabeled for keynote 25 east of scupper. Clarify. c) Truncated domes shall be located where the pedestrian route meets the traffic access areas. Remove truncated domes within the sidewalk areas not directly at the edge of pavement. Assure truncated domes are extended to the edge of pavement at accessible route ramps. d) On sheet C1.3, explain dark line offset from south and east parking boundary. e) On sheet C1.3, add to keynote 2, "with detectable warning strip". f) Label width of medians and any openings for water harvesting if any. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Check the south and east boundary data on sheet C1.1 and C1.3. Length of east-west boundary lines so not appear to match existing conditions. Submit ALTA or title report to verify. Also, provide parcel combo documentation for lots 7, 8, and portion of 9, as these parcels are not all the same owner. On sheet C1.1, clarify "Overall 706.96'". 9) On sheet C1.1, clarify overlap of wall and rip rap spillways. 10) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Development Plans shall have note(s) stating: (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.D.1: Please acknowledge that a right-of-way use permit may be required; at grading plan stage contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A&E: Show the basis of bearing on a planview. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A&E: Indicate the location of the basis of elevation on a planview. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Label existing flowrates on planview entering and exiting the project. Label Q100 entering and Q100 exiting site. Delineate WSEL along sections of the western channel floodplain - show on sections and details. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J&2.3.E: Provide delineations for floodplain, WSEL contours, and ponding limits in legend. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.S: Revise dumpster detail on sheet CD1.2 with 10-ft inside dimensioning between bollards (both ways). 17) Label new portion of curb and sidewalk along Palo Verde, and also label 6-ft MS&R width of new portion of sidewalk on sheet C1.2 on keynote or planview. 18) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Address the following geotechnical related comments: a) Label setback from basin on Development Plan planview based on a geotechnical report recommendation. b) Provide bleed pipes to enhance drain down time for basin and prevent ponding. Basin shall have minimum 1% slope grade in basin bottom due to inspection field issues and to address mosquito reduction. 19) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Show 8:1(H:V) slopes along basin sides where human activity zones are proposed / for emergency exit and access. Also show and label maintenance access to basin on sheet C1.2. 20) 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. Address the following comments: a) On landscape sheets L1 and L-3, remove/relocate proposed new trees in SVT's on planview. b) Show location of maintenance access ramp on planview. Assure no vegetation obstructs maintenance access ramp. 21) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. The grading plan will need a SWPPP as well as grading permit and floodplain use permit applications. Also be aware that DEQ air quality permit and reseed bond are required at the time the grading permit is issued. 22) Submit revised Development Plan, revised Landscape Plan, revised drainge report, geotechnical report, and response letter. If you have any questions or need clarification regarding the comments, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/14/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Solid waste vehicle circulation path must provide for a 36ft inside and 50ft outside turning radius without encroaching within oncoming traffic lane. DS6-01.0 Figure 1. Recommend increasing curb returns/concrete islands radius, that are within the circulation path, to a minimum 25ft to allow adequate maneuverability and minimize conflict. 2. Sheet CD1.2 - Enclosure detail does not meet minimum criteria per DS 6-01.4.0.. A. Enclosure requires rear and side wall protectors/bollards with the spacing between the two rear bollards at 4ft between and provide two side bollards with the front side bollards 2ft from the front gates and the rear side bollard 4ft from the front side bollard. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2. Fully dimension enclosure inside and out. B. Require a minimum 10ft x 10ft inside clear service area between the rear and side bollards and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B. C. Position a post at the face of the CMU wall and mount the gates to the post in order to prevent damage to the CMU wall. D. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the openand closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4Show and annotate within detail...recommend "positive locking & (Bayonet) anchors, QTY-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation." 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 |
| 11/17/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 11/17/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 11/17/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/17/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/18/2008 | 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: D08-0049 RED CROSS REGIONAL DISTRICT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/18/08 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 address from Title Block and sheet 1. Delete owner information from building, sheet 1. Delete address, owner and all Docket/Page information for surrounding properties on all applicable sheets. Spell out suffix for Palo Verde, on all applicable sheets. Delete the word “Address” from address block, sheet 1. Label project number on all sheets. Label all four corners of section 9 on Location Map. Add label for Location Map. Correct spelling of Britannia on Location Map. Delete “Ward 5” from Location Map description. Include “G & S.R.B.M.” after range information in description on Location Map. Move “City of Tucson” to before “Pima County” on Location Map description. Correct scale label under “Project Overview” sheet 1. Delete “not a resubdivision” from legal description in Title Block. Add the words “of maps and plats” to legal description in Title Block after “Page 56…” Move Title Block to lower right hand corner of Development Plan. Delete legal description from building, sheet 5. Note: Due to access off of Hemisphere Loop, address for this Development Plan will change upon approval. Darken label for Hemisphere Loop, sheet 6. Delete legal description from both places, sheet 6. Delete legal description, sheet 7. |
| 11/19/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 19, 2008 Scott Eisenfeld GLHN Architects and Engineers 2939 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D08-0049 Red Cross Regional Distribution Center Development Plan Dear Scott: Your submittal of October 16, 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 10 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Wastewater, ADA, Engineering, ESD, Addressing, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, 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: 795-1822 dp-resubmittal |