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 - D09-0011
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/02/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | At least on of the gates shall be 20 feet clear and have a Fire Department lock box. Please see IFC Section 503.6.2 as ammended. |
| 04/03/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | I have reviewed the above referenced development plan and have the following comments. The development is a distance off the ADOT roadway system. This type of development typically has an off peak traffic flow and will have minimal impact on the ADOT system. Therefore, I do not have any comments to provide. Daniel Williams, PE ADOT Tucson District 1221 S. 2nd Avenue Tucson, AZ 85713 520 388-4200 ________________________________ 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. 2009 |
| 04/03/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic: * No comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities. * Traffic will be forwarding development plans to Development Engineer for separate comments. Thank you. ________________________________ 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. 2009 |
| 04/06/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/09/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#209539 April 9, 2009 Rick Engineering Service Office Blvd Attn: Anthony Boone 3945 E Fort Lowell Rd, Suite 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Boone : SUBJECT: USDA Forest Service Office Bld D09-0011 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 30, 2009. 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: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 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 |
| 04/14/2009 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0011 USDA Forest Service Office Reviewed: Development Plan CROSS REFERENCE: C9-94-32 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan COMMENTS DUE BY: April 27, 2009 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( X ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions; however, DUPD defers to Transportation Department to follow-up on rezoning conditions 1.b,c,d,e,f,g, 3, and 4. REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: April 10, 2009 |
| 04/16/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 15, 2009 To: ANTHONY BOONE RICK ENGINEERING Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: USDA FOREST SERVICE - TUCSON I.O.C. Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D09-011 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 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. The private sewer line you are proposing to connect to should be called out as PV-98-028 not G-98-040. The slope of the proposed sewer line segment from existing MH#8 to MH#2 should be shown as 0.5% not 0.05%. The same applies for the stubout off of MH#1. Obtain a letter from the owner of the private sewer line you are proposing to tap into granting permission and capacity. A private joint sewer service agreement may be required as well. Contact Mrs. Ilene Deckard with PCRWRD @ 740-6544. 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 $50.00 (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. |
| 04/16/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D09-0011 USDA FOREST SERVICE OFFICE BLD: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 882 PM Peak: 15 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 |
| 04/20/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | April 20, 2009 Ms. Gehlen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on D09-0011 USDA Forest Service; a development plan review application for an approximately 3.7-acre site located south and east of the southeast corner of Commerce Center Place and Tucson Boulevard. The proposed land use is administration and professional offices. This site is within the Tucson International Airport public disclosure area and traffic pattern airspace. The site is also within the City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone (LUC 2.8.5) and the AEZ Airport Hazard District (LUC 2.8.5.C.1). The proposed building height of 25 feet is within the allowable building height maximum established for this site by the District (LUC 2.8.5.11.A.1). Any development or use of the site that constitutes, or which could effect, an airport hazard is prohibited (LUC 2.8.5.11.A.1). The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition should be identified in the general notes of the approved development plan. Condition of approval: "That prior to the City's approval of any construction permit for a permanent building, the property owner shall record the Airport Disclosure Statement form that discloses the existence, and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided." The property owner should forward a copy of the recorded Airport Disclosure Statement form to: Jordan D. Feld, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Tucson, AZ 85756 Please be advised that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires airspace obstruction analysis (FAR Part 77). The FAA should be notified by the developer of any construction project within 20,000 feet of a public airport that exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway. An obstruction to this surface includes construction cranes used during development; the proposed development may potentially obstruct this surface during construction. If determined as necessary, the developer may e-file the required notification at: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp In addition, we ask that you forward a copy of the notification electronic submittal to the following email address: lfederico@tucsonairport.org Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at jfeld@tucsonairport.org or by telephone at 520-573-5115. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject application and the City of Tucson's recognition of the regional importance in ensuring continuing safety and viability of Tucson International Airport. Respectfully, Jordan D. Feld, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Ave. Tucson, AZ 85756 jfeld@tucsonairport.org www.tucsonairport.org (520) 573-5115 office (520) 573-8006 fax cc: JM LF file |
| 04/21/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Detectable Warnings as per ICC/ANSI, Sections 406.12 and 406.14 are required only at marked crossings. The addition of detectable warings at accessible parking aisles are optional and not required by code. 2. Provide an accessible route connection from the front to the back of the building. Suggested connection to be an extension of walkway on the NW side of building. Reference 2006 IBC, Chapter 11, Section 1104 and Zoning comments. 3. Extend the accessible route from the rear accessible parking ro the West corner accessible route of the building. Reference 2006 IBC, Chapter 11, Section 1104 and Zoning comments. 4. Provide an accessible route from the building to the gate that connects to the asphalt trail. Reference 2006 IBC, Chapter 11, Section 1104 and Zoning comments. Zoning will probably require a concrete walkway. Include all marked crossings as required. 5. Delete the two ramps and detectable warning strips at the back of the building leading to the parking lot. Retain the 6" high curb. The ramps and detectable warnings present a hazard condition as a marked crossing with no end. 6. Sheet 8 of 23: Please be aware that details 207 are for Public Right of Way construction only. All accessible code requirements within the boundaries of the property line are governed by 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC/ANSI 117.1. 7. Detail E/9: a. The height of the accessible parking is to be 7' from the bottom of the main sign to the finished grade,.. b. In reference to the Detectable Warning note, Section 406.3 deals with ramp flared sides and section 302 is for surface requirements. Reference note 1 above for detectable warning requirements. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/23/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D09-0011 USDA Forest Service Office Bld. Development Plan - package TRANSMITTAL: 04/23/2009 DUE DATE: 04/27/09 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 03/29/10. 2. Prior to approval of the development plan a lot split application must be processed and approved. A separate application, fees, review, and approval by DSD is required for the lot split. If the lot split has been processed and approved by DSD, submit copies of the approved survey drawing along with the recorded legal descriptions (with docket and page stamped) with the next submittal. Add the lot split case number at the lower right corner of each sheet of this development plan. 3. DS 2-01.3.2.D Provide the administrative street address within the title block. Because of the lot split the address of this project may change. Revise all permits and plans to show the new address. 4. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Add to general note number 5, This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for: Sec. 2.8.5, Airport Environs Zone (AEZ). This project is within the Airport Hazard District (AHD) portion of the AEZ overlay zone. Review LUC Sec. 2.8.5.11 and provide calculations showing compliance. NE end of runway 21 is 2,567 feet M.S.L. Allowed 120' above end of runway, 2687 feet M.S.L. Provide M.S.L. of foundation of proposed building, ______ M.S.L. Provide M.S.L. of the height of proposed building, ______ M.S.L. --- (cannot exceed the allowed height M.S.L.) 5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.8 Case number D09-0011 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. 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9 Provide the allowed and provide Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.H.5.d Please provide a dimensioned detail for class 1 bicycle parking spaces as well as a detail of the type of class 1 bicycle locker. 8. DS 2-01.3.7.R Along the south east side of the building a 5' pedestrian refuge with a min. 4' sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Clearly indicate the location and minimum width of this sidewalk (4'). This sidewalk must connect to the pedestrian circulation path at the front of the building and the pedestrian circulation path at the rear of the building. The location of the class 1 bicycle parking appears to be in conflict with this requirement, may need to be relocated. A man gate will be required to be placed in the fence which crosses this sidewalk. Add a note stating that all indicated gates are required to remain open during business hours. (required parking located within the gated area) Per DS 2-08.3.1 provide a pedestrian circulation path to the trash enclosure. 9. DS 2-01.3.7.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. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. 10. A DSMR has been applied for in regards to this site. Provide the DSMR case number near the lower right corner of each sheet. Provide as a general note the DSMR case number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D09-0011dp.doc Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04/23/2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 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 could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 04/24/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/24/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: USDA Forest Services Office Building D09-0011, T15S, R14E, SECTION 08 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on March 30, 2009 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan package where the revisions were made: EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.3. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. According to the parcel information provided on Mapguide, the subject parcel proposed to be developed does not exit. If the parcel is being created through a land split process, the subject project can not be approved until the land split is approved and the parcel is created. 2. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition 1B and show the dedicated 25' access and landscape easement. Label the easement and include the recordation information and the dimensions as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.) and (D.S. 2-01.3.8.L). 3. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions 3 and 4. 4. It is not clear how the trash enclosure can be accessed if the gates are closed. MASTER COVER / SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 1. Provide at least ½ inch margin on the right side to facilitate efficient record keeping (D.S. 2-01.2.1). 2. Provide the name, mailing and mailing address and phone number of the firm that prepared the document on the right half of the cover sheet (D.S. 2-01.3.3.1). 3. Provide the administrative street address (D.S. 2-01.3.3.2.D). General Notes: 1. Revise General Note #10 by adding the words "and after any major storm" after the words "once each year". 2. It seems that the words "or neighborhood association" in General Notes #9, #10 and #12 and in the "Maintenance of Detention/Retention Facilities" Notes, are not needed. Development Plan: 1. Show on the plan the Basis of Bearing, between two established monuments, and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A.). 2. Reference the Wheelchair Ramp City of Tucson Standard number on Detail E/9. 3. Bleed pipes may be utilized for waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. Revise Detail P/10 accordingly. 4. Provide and call out the right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Commerce Center Place (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C.). 5. Show existing onsite utilities as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.D.). 6. Show existing onsite and offsite storm drainage facilities as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F.). 7. Provide 100-year water surface elevation for all flows of 100 cfs as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.I.). Please be advised that the building shall be set at least 1' above Rodeo Wash's water surface elevation just upstream of the building or the 100-year floodplain, north of the building, whichever is higher. 8. Provide the dimensions all existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.H.4). 9. Show detention/retention basins 100-year ponding limits as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.N.1). 10. Show all building setbacks from the detention/retention basins and ponding water within the waterharvesting area west of the building. Revise the Geotechnical Report to provide the required setbacks. 11. It is recommended that the building finished floor elevation is set one foot above the adjacent water harvesting surface elevation. 12. Provide a recent property title report to help verify the depicted existing onsite easements (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 13. Provide locations and types of all drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). 14. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Steve Tineo of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 15. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Drainage Report: 1. In a critical basin, runoff detention is required to provide a minimum of 15% runoff reduction. Revise Sections 3.0 and 3.2 accordingly. 2. Replace "Pima County" in the second line of Section 3.2, with "city of Tucson". 3. What does the "*" mean in the table on page 8? 4. Add the words "and after any major storm" after the words "once a year", in the fourth line, item "B" of the Basin Maintenance Guidelines. 5. It appears that the number of BAS 4P scupper cells, shown in Appendix D is inaccurate. The Drainage Exhibits appear to show 5 cell scuppers. 6. Show Rodeo Wash study and resource areas on the Drainage Exhibits. 7. Investigate the possibility of draining the proposed southern detention/retention system directly into Rodeo Wash without encroaching on Rodeo Wash study area. Discharging into Rodeo Wash will eliminate the need to unnecessarily discharging into the adjacent parcel. 8. Label the detention/retention basins on the Drainage Exhibits. 9. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 10. Show on the Drainage Exhibits the 100-year water surface elevations in Rodeo Wash, the proposed detention/retention basins and the plunge basin. The minimum building finished floor elevation shall be determined based on the provided water surface elevations. 11. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 12. The proposed grading and erosion control pad, shown on the adjacent parcel, are not acceptable, without written permission from the owner of the adjacent parcel. Additionally, construction and drainage easements need to be dedicated on the adjacent parcel in order to install the proposed fill and drainage structure. If permission is not granted, proposed grading and outlet structure need to be pulled back into the subject parcel and needs proposed grading needs to be at least 2 feet away from the property line. 13. Basin 3P discharge is concentrated, which is not acceptable. In order to restore the discharge to predevelopment sheet flow conditions, the basin outlet shall be moved back inside the property line and an energy dissipation system shall be incorporated in the design. 14. Revise the Drainage Exhibits to provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage, inlets and outlets, detention basins maintenance access ramps and side slopes, sidewalk scuppers, all basins 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevations, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. 15. It is not clear how deep the footing of the proposed retaining wall shall be. Address this issue based on the performed scour analysis. 16. All proposed splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report. 17. According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. 18. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated into the development by conveying surface flow and rooftop drainage to designated water harvesting areas. Please address, in details, how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. Copies of the above-referenced manual can be obtained from the Engineering Counter. Please be advised that for water harvesting purposes, the landscaped areas shall be depressed a maximum of 6". Bleed pipes may be utilized for waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. 19. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. Additionally, the proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be include in the Report (i.e. maintenance discussion and checklist address only the detention/retention basins). 20. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 21. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 22. Buildings set backs need to be determined from the proposed retention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. 23. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps. Grading Plan: 1. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the grading legend. 2. Add the following general notes: a. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, the contractor may utilize BMP's at the basin inlets to prevent the fines from entering the basins. b. Add a note, which states that any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. c. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. d. CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A DSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://WWW.CI.TUCSON.AZ.US/DSD/ONLINE_SERVICES/ONLINE_PERMITS/ONLINE_PERMITS.HTML. e. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. h. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. i. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. j. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. k. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. l. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. m. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. n. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 3. Rock size D50 = 8" seems to be too large for 6" grout. In order to prevent weak areas within the grouted rip rap due to the size of the rock and possible improper installation, either reduce the size of the riprap or thicken the grout. Revise all applicable details. 4. Show on the plan the appropriate slope protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. 5. Provide all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, etc.) for the proposed drainage structures (i.e. basins, erosion control pads, etc.). 6. Provide, on Detail S/10 the depth of the retaining wall footing based on the performed scour analysis and the recommendation of the Geotechnical Engineer. Additionally, the footing depth of the retaining wall described in Keynote 8 shall be designed based on applicable loads and the scour depth that might occur from the offsite runoff. Show the required depth on Detail T/11. 7. Provide a cross section detail for the storm conveyance system underneath the entrance. Provide the pipe slope and cover. Additionally, provide an erosion control pad at the pipe outlet. 8. Detail N/10 shall reference "Concrete Curb Terminal" Standard Detail 212. 9. Keynote 13 on Sheet 6/23 appears to reference the wrong detail (i.e. X/11). Revise as necessary. 10. Delineate clearly the water harvesting area west of the building. Demonstrate that the water will not be ponding next to the building. The Geotechnical Engineer shall recommend the required setback from ponding water. Show the required setback. 11. 2" bleed pipes can be installed at all water harvesting areas, 2"-3" above grade to ensure that prolonged ponding will not occur. 12. Show roof drainage direction. 13. Call out the "Detectable Warning Strip" on all details shown on Sheet 8/23. 14. Provide the required clearance dimensions within the trash enclosure. 15. Keynote 16 specifies 3 type 3 scuppers, yet the plan shows, on Sheet 7/23, 5 scuppers. Revise as necessary. 16. The bleed pipe 6" orifice shall be installed at the pipe inlet near the bleed pipe invert to ensure that water will not be ponding near the basin outlet. Revise Detail K/9 and the call outs, on Sheet 1/23, accordingly. 17. The proposed grading and erosion control pad, shown on the adjacent parcel, are not acceptable, without written permission from the owner of the adjacent parcel. Additionally, construction and drainage easements need to be dedicated on the adjacent parcel in order to install the proposed fill and drainage structure. If permission is not granted, proposed grading and outlet structure need to be pulled back into the subject parcel. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2'. 18. Show enlarged details for all basin inlets and outlets with dimensions and elevations. 19. Show the required basins' maintenance access ramps and any required security barriers. 20. A floodplain use permit is required for the building and all proposed work within the regulatory floodplain. Geotechnical Report: 1. Revise the Geotechnical Report to provide the required setbacks from ponding water within the detention/retention basins and water harvesting areas. SWPPP: 1. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 2. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 3. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators. 4. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 5. Provide an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the site for both the pre-construction and post-construction conditions. (Part IV.C.2.d). 6. The first two activities in the "Major Construction Activities" shall be determining the disturbance limits and installing the PMB's inside the limits. 7. Provide several options for the proposed BMPs selected for the site and describe how each will reduce pollutants in stormwater (Parts III.A.2.b, III.C.5.a and IV.A.1). Revise the Legend accordingly. 8. Describe how BMPs will be added, modified, or replaced for each phase or sequence of construction activities. Also, identify which operator is responsible for the implementation of BMPs (Part III.C.5.b). 9. Describe where natural/existing vegetation will be preserved. Locations of trees and boundaries of environmentally sensitive area and buffer zones to be preserved are also to be on the SWPPP site map (Part IV.B.1.a). 10. Describe how off site stormwater that may run onto the project site will be diverted or otherwise managed with onsite engineering controls, containment, or BMPs (Part IV.B.1). 11. Identify how records of dates when major grading activities occur will be kept (Part IV.B.3). 12. Identify how records of when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on all portions of the site will be kept (Part IV.B.3). 13. Identify how records of when stabilization measures are initiated and completed and reason(s) for delay will be kept (Part IV.B.3). 14. Identify post-construction stormwater BMPs (e.g., porous pavement, open space preservation, etc.,) that will be installed as part of this project. Note; temporary BMPs (e.g., straw waddles, etc., ) must be removed prior to submitting your NOT (Part IV.F.1). 15. Specify the names and telephone numbers of government agencies that need to be notified in case of a spill (Part IV.B.1). Provide this information on the exhibit for easy access 16. All operators for the project site shall be identified, and the areas over which each operator has control (Part IV.C.1). 17. Indicate in the SWPPP the areas of the project where the operator has operational control over project specifications, including the ability to make modifications in specifications. (Part IV.B.1.b). 18. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d). 19. Indicate in the SWPPP the areas of the project where each operator has operational control over day-to-day activities. (Part IV.B.2.c). 20. Describe how the SWPPP will be modified when needed, within 7 calendar days of inspection. BMP's must be modified or added before next storm event or as soon as possible (Part IV.H.7). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 04/28/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Development Plans/Landscape Plans 1) Provide an easement for the path along the Rodeo Wash per C9-94-32. 2) Per DS 2-05.2.2.C.3, if the application includes property with Protected Riparian Area within the 100-year floodplain shall conform to Development Standard 9-06.0 and shall include a note referencing all lots impacted, and state that the project is designed to comply with the regulation. Please add an appropriate note. 3) Per DS 9-06.2.6.D, the Protected Riparian Area shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction upon further development. Identify the Protected Riparian Area on the Development Plan and provide information regarding the easements or restrictions. 4) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B, DS 2-01.3.3. 5) As a general note provide the DSMR case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval on the Development Plan. 2-01.3.7.A.6.a. 6) Submit the Environmental Resource Report with the next submittal of the Development package. DS 9-06.2.6.B The report reviewed in conjunction with the DSMR is not yet approved. The DSMR focused solely on the approval necessary to disturb a portion of the "protected riparian area". 7) Identify water harvesting areas on the landscape plans. LUC 3.7.4.3 Grading Plan 8) Revise the grading plan, landscape plans, and the native plant preservation plans to establish grading limits. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5, DS 2-15.3.4.A 9) Revise the grading plans to correspond with revisions made to the development plans where applicable. |
| 04/29/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 04/27/2009 3:57 PM >>> No comment |
| 04/29/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 04/30/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 5 - Include one additional single solid waste enclosure so side by side with existing proposed or design for one double wide enclosure, to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste streams. This size office complex will generate both. 2. Sheet 9 F - Trash enclosure detail - Position steel tube gate post to the face of the CMU wall and insure it is detached from wall. Prevents damage to wall in the event gates get damaged and provides a wider (12 ft) opening for service operation. 3. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and show within detail...recommend "Positive locking and (Bayonet) anchors, QTY - 4/1 inch DIA. x 6 inch long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation." Mount anchors to the outside of the gates and position pipe/holes accordingly. 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 |
| 04/30/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/30/2009 | 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: D09-0011 USDA FOREST SERVICE OFFICE BLDG/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/28/09 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: Include legal description. Delete all adjacent tax codes and owner information. |
| 05/05/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: May 04, 2009 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D09-0011 USDA Forest Service Office Bldg: Development Plan Review(3/30/09) The paved path along Rodeo Wash is referred to as a "trail" in several instances. Please change to "paved path" as indicated in the rezoning conditions. The landscaping along the path is very sparse. Indicate planting of additional trees to shade the path and increase the shrub plantings by 300%, using only native plants indigenous to southern Arizona. Indicate handrailing will be provided where necessary for safety reasons. Indicate the path shall meet ADA accessibility requirements. Under Irrigation Notes, indicate whether irrigation plans are according to City of Tucson, Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards. Indicate a publicly accessible, non-motorized, trail access easement for the path. Indicate the path shall be protected from drainage from adjacent street and property. Drainage shall be diverted away from the path to designed culverts or pipe drainage under the trail. |
| 05/07/2009 | CDRC1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 7, 2009 aboone@rickengineering.com Subject: D09-0011 USDA Forest Service Office Building Dear Anthony: Your submittal of March 30, 2009 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 11 Copies Revised Development Plan (ADA, Addressing, Fire, Wastewater, Landscape, Parks & Rec, Engineering, ESD, Tucson Airport Authority, Zoning, DSD) 11 Copies Detailed Cover letter 4 Copies Revised Grading Plan 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP 1 Check Payable to: Pima County Treasurer, ($50 per page for second review fee.) Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen, 837-4919 CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ |