Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0050
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/22/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/23/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/24/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 10/28/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> "Douglas Kratina" <DKratina@azdot.gov> 10/27/2008 10:40 AM >>> 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 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#204768 October 29, 2008 Leadstar LLC Attn: Joe Zeman 6303 E Tanque Verde Rd, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Zeman : SUBJECT: Radiology, LTD. Lot 22 Midvale D08-0050 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 17, 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. Any 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 10/30/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No comment. |
| 10/30/2008 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | >>> "KoSok Chae" <kchae@pagnet.org> 10/29/2008 4:55 PM >>> CASE: D08-0050, RADIOLOGY LTD. LOT22 MIDVALE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 264 PM Peak: 27 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 |
| 11/03/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0050 Radiology LTD. Lot 22 Midvale Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 11/03/2008 DUE DATE: 11/20/08 COMMENTS: 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 10/21/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.1.D provide the City of Tucson jurisdictional limits within the location map. 3. DS 2-05.2.1.K Provide the annexation case number C9-83-34 in the lower right corner, next to the title block. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D08-0050 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. 5. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. Keynote #8: Per lot split S06-261 a 24'access easement is in place 24' west of the property line dividing the two properties, provide recording (docket and page) information for the abandonment of this easement. Indicate this easement on the plan. Provide recording information for the cross access agreement with the property to the west. Provide a copy of the agreement for review. Key note #9, provide docket and page information for the new ingress/egress easement. Key note #17, provide docket and page information for the TEP easement. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.A This site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately by providing a cross access agreement for pedestrian use, vehicular use, drainage and possibly for the trash enclosure (see engineering comments). Provide a copy of this agreement for review and provide as a note the recording docket and page information for this agreement. Provide the lot split case number S06-261in the lower right corner, next to the title block of all associated sheets. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.I The indicated 15' building setback for the street perimeter yard is incorrect. This project qualifies for developed area setbacks. See LUC. Sec. 6.2.4 for definitions of developed areas and developing areas. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.A the required street perimeter yard setback is 20' or 1 ½ times the height of the proposed wall which ever is greater. The wall height is not indicated but with a 23' building height as a minimum the required setback from the front property line would be 34'-6". Revise plans. Provide building height and wall height on the footprint of the building on the development plan. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.K This project is considered as one site in conjunction with the properties located to the east and west. Provide an accessible pedestrian circulation path connecting the three buildings. Provide a striped crosswalk connecting the proposed building with the building to the east. Minimum 4' in width. A handicap ramp will be required to be provided at the east end of the crosswalk in the existing sidewalk. The crosswalk for the existing building where adjacent to the parking space at the north end is required to be a physically separated concrete sidewalk with a handicap ramp at the south end of the sidewalk where the sidewalk meets the crosswalk. Clearly indicate the location of the handicap ramps at the relocated handicap access aisles for the existing building. Per the aerial photographs these are new handicap parking spaces, indicate as such. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.P Per the last approved development for the existing building wheel stops where provided at all parking spaces for the existing building to prevent limiting the sidewalk to less than 4' width and overhanging landscape areas.. Clearly indicate the location of all wheel stops for the parking spaces at the existing building.. Provide a standard parking space detail with the location of the wheel stops clearly indicating the required 2'-6" setback from the front of the parking space. By a count of the parking spaces on the development plan there is 48 parking spaces provided not 45 as indicated in calculations.. Revise parking calculations on sheet 1. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Clearly indicate the location of the class two bicycle parking spaces for the new building as well as the existing building located to the east on the development plan. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not appear meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2). 11. DS 2-05.2.4.W If applicable, indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0050dp.doc |
| 11/04/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC Development Plan case number (D08-0050) along with any other related case numbers to all sheets of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Site/Grading Plan. 2. Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A. A minimum of two shrubs for each tree is recommended on basin side slopes, periphery, and with certain precautions in the basin bottom. Organic ground cover is recommended and overall, inert groundcovers alone should not comprise over 35% of the total basin area. Refer to guidelines in DS 10-01, pages 90-96. 3) Dimension the minimum width and label the square footage measured from the inside of tree planters in the vehicle use area. An unpaved area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e |
| 11/06/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | REFERENCE ZONING COMMENTS FOR WHEELSTOPS AT THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES |
| 11/13/2008 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0050 Radiology Ltd. - Midvale ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: D03-0034 & Annexation C9-83-84 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/20/08 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 (XXXX) 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: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 10/29/08 |
| 11/17/2008 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | November 17, 2008 D08- 0050 Radiology LTD, Development Plan Resubmittal Required: Development Plan The development plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please make the following corrections. Include a letter that clearly describes how each comment has been addressed. If you wish to set up a meeting or discuss any questions, please contact me at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. 1. Correctly identify the parcel numbers for this project. The parcel has been split into two parcels (138-24-105A and 138-24-105B). The lot split was completed with activity number S06-261. Revise the notes and plans to reflect the correct parcel codes. 2. Revise the Sheet Index on the first sheet to correctly list the locations of plan elements. 3. Provide recordation information for all easements and for easement abandonment. 4. Revise the keynotes so the details are correctly called out. 5. Clarify the use of callout for note 10 along the north property boundary. 6. In your response letter indicate the location of the existing ingress/egress and utility easement indicated by keynote 8. Indicate whether the easement will be abandoned or retained. 7. Identify on the development plan the location and extent of the water harvesting areas described in the drainage report. Provide sufficient spot elevations to substantiate the effective volumes of the water harvesting areas. 8. Provide copies of recorded joint use and maintenance agreements for the shared use of the solid waste container and the drainage and water harvesting basins. Include recordation data as well. |
| 11/17/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 12, 2008 To: JOE ZEMAN LEADSTAR, LLC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Tom Porter, Sr CEA Development Review Division ( Wastewater) Subject: RADIOLOGY LIMITED LOT 22, MIDVALE PARK COMMERCE CENTER II Development Plan – 1st Submittal D08-050 The drawings for the proposed Final Plat for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 2: A new public manhole will be required in Commerce Court at the point of connection for the proposed private 6” BCS. Only a 4” BCS can be directly connected to the existing public sewer line. Sheet 2: The proposed 6” BCS shown on plan does not match the symbol shown in the Legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 2: Show the proposed BCS connecting to the proposed building and mark it as private. Also show the slope and length of the proposed private BCS. Sheet 2: Show the rim and invert elevations for any proposed private cleanouts and show the invert elevation at the point of connection to the public sewer line. Sheet 2: The existing private BCS shown on plan appears to be to close to the proposed building. 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 comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. |
| 11/19/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide one additional single enclosure or design for one double wide enclosure in order to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste. 2. Add a general note stating: "One single property owner, property management, or association will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection service/s and storage area/s for all buildings/development/users. 3. Identify adjacent development within DP in order to determine whether adequate circulation for collection vehicle and ingress/egress. DS 6-01.3.1. 4. Trash enclosure detail - The required minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear container service area must be dimensioned to the face of the wall protector/bollard not to center to reflect accurately and wholey. 5. Include the following annotaion for securing gates:"Cane bolt sleeves (flush in concrete) strategically located for securing gates in the open (90 degrees minimum) and closed positions." 6. Identify gate post type (i.e 4" x 4" steel) and position it to the face of the CMU wall so gate openeing is a minimum of 12 ft. 7. Call out CMU wall thickness. 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 |
| 11/21/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 21, 2008 Joe Zeman Leadstar LLC 6303 East Tanque Verde Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 857?? Subject: D08-0050 Radiology LTD. Lot 22 Midvale Development Plan Dear Joe: Your submittal of October 22, 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 7 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, ESD, Addressing, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Recorded Cross Access Agreement (both of them) (Zoning, 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: 547-0195 dp-resubmittal |
| 11/21/2008 | 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: D08-0050 RADIOLOGY LTD. LOT 22 MIDVALE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/20/08 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: Label project number on all sheets. Add suffix for Midvale Park on Location Map. Correct suffix for Midvale Park, sheets 1 and 2. Label buildings numerically starting with existing building as building 1, sheets 1 and 2. Show building dimensions, and footages, sheet 1. List both taxcodes for project in General Note #2. Correct legal description on Location Map. Correct subdivision name for 39/93 on Location Map. |
| 11/21/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 11/21/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/21/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 11/21/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed |