Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0026
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/15/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/15/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 07/20/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 17, 2009 To: SHARON BONESTEEL BONESTEEL INC. 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: PLAZA VEGA - REV 1 Dev. Plan –1st Submittal D09-026 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. This project will be tributary to the Ina Road Wastewater Treatment Faciltiy via the North Rillito Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #12 to read as follows: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 1: Show the public, private, existing and proposed sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #12 to read as follows: ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). Sheet 2: The existing 4” BCS for Building #1 appears to be directly connected to the 15” existing public sewer line in Oracle Rd. This will be verified by operations. Sheet 2: Change the flow directional arrows on C-94 and the IMS #’s shown on plan for the existing public manholes on plan have not been shown correctly. Please revise. Sheet 2: Manhole 9544-03 is not a terminal manhole show the public sewer extending southwest of this 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. |
| 07/20/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY |
| 07/21/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D09-0026 Plaza Vega Electronic Plans COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 4,899 PM Peak: 543 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 |
| 07/21/2009 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Unable to tell from electronic files distance from existing fire hydrant(s) to end of parking structures. Please verify farthest part of structure is within 300' of a hydrant (as the hose lays) or be prepared to add an additional hydrant. Also, please indicate occupant load of proposed restaurant. Occupant load of 100 or more would require fire sprinklers. |
| 07/24/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please extend the accessible route from North East corner of Building 1 to the accessible route on the South West corner of Building 1 as per the 2006 IBC, Section 1104 and ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 402. 2. There are four marked crossings shown on this site. All marked crossing shall have a Detectable Warning at the beginning and on the other end of the marked crossing as per Sections 406.12 and 406.14. All detectable warnings shall be located at the edge of the marked crossing just prior to entering the PAAL. This include the parking aisle that is made a part of the marked crossing at Building 3. 4. Please clarify the elevation conditions at every group of accessible parking between the parking aisle and access to the accessible route. It appears as most are flush conditions but one has a ramp note 10 referenced. a. Please provide large scale details of each different type of sidewalk and/or curb ramp showing compliance with sections 405 and 406. Please provide all critical accessible dimensions, slopes, detectable warnings where required, landings and connection to accessible routes and marked crossings. 5. Please change note 10, sheet 2, to read "as per ICC/ANSI Section 406. 6. At the stairs, please clarify compliance with ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 307.4, Reduced Vertical Clearance. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/24/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 07/27/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#214046 July 23, 2009 Bonesteel Inc. Attn: Sharon P.O. Box 36792 Tucson, Arizona 85740 Dear Sharon: SUBJECT: Plaza Vega D09-0026 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted July 17, 2009. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH POLE LINE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 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 Lorraine Ruiz at (520) 918-8241. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) L. Ruiz, Tucson Electric Power |
| 07/27/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 24, 2009 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D09-0026 Plaza Vega: Development Plan Review(7/17/09) Staff has no comments. |
| 08/04/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approved | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject development plan (D09-0026) Plaza Vega Electronics 5151 N Oracle. The site is not within the TIA Public Disclosure Area. The Tucson Airport Authority does not oppose this request. 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 |
| 08/06/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 6, 2009 SUBJECT: Plaza Vega Development Plan- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 5151 N Oracle Road, T13S R13E Sec14, Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D09-0026 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning Development Services Department has received the proposed development plan and the submitted Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc., 02JUL09). Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. The Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC REPORT: 1) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: All work within the WASH overlay zone of Pima Canyon Wash must be approved by the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) department prior to approval of the development plan. Provide the WASH overlay application for further review by all departments. 2) DS Sec.9-06.2.5.A.2: Revise the discussion within the HH Report for the Pima Canyon Wash stating that this wash is a Water Course Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) wash per the watercourses designated in the Water Course Amenities, Safety and Habitat regulations in Article VIII of Chapter 29. The discussion must include verbiage of the 50-foot study area and any proposed encroachment into this study area along with temporary fencing that is required to be placed around the portion of the 50-foot study area not to be disturbed to prevent encroachment or equipment storage. All areas that are proposed to be disturbed or currently exist within the study area will require prior approval from the Landscaping Section. 3) Tucson Code Sec 29-15: In addition to the information required in Chapter 26, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the HH Report shall contain the following elements (this information is within the ERR report, but must also be contained within the HH Report): a) The location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to, and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development. b) Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential. c) Existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of five hundred (500) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development. d) The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. e) Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. f) Groundwater recharge potential at this location. g) Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location. h) Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. i) Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: A Geotechnical Report is required for this project due to the proposed erosion hazard setback limits and proposed encroachment. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, pavement design section, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to existing channel and scour depths. 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. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the development plan and HH Report. 5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.E: Provide all HEC-RAS input sheets for the hydraulic cross sections for the existing channel. Provide an additional cross section at the upstream end of the proposed parking structure to verify that the finished floor elevation meets the minimum elevation (1-foot above the calculated WSEL) requirements. Verify that the water surface elevations submitted on the proposed development plan match the hydraulic information that is calculated within the HH Report. 6) Revise the HH Report and post-exhibit map to meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8; either 1) provide manholes/clean outs at all storm drain pipe junctions as shown on the development plan sheets, or 2) verify that the angle as shown is equal to or less than 10 degrees. Per the DS "Manholes shall be located at such places as junctions, changes in pipe size, curves and angle points in excess of 10 degrees and points where an abrupt change in grade occurs." Verify that the design conforms to the requirements within this section. 7) Revise the HH Report and/or figures to provide a detail for all proposed slope protection along Pima Canyon Wash. If rock rip rap is proposed provide method of placement, size, thickness, and depth of embedment; filter fabric specifications, etc. and verify that all drainage details are on the proposed development plan and match the recommendations within the HH Report and Geotechnical Report. 8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Verify that all drainage infrastructure and details that are on the proposed development plan meet the minimum requirements and design parameters per the revised HH Report. Verify that the proposed drainage improvements; storm drains, catch basins, grates, erosion hazard protection, PAAL drainage etc. meet the requirements and design details within the HH Report and the recommendation within the Geotechnical Report. 9) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Revise the Hydrologic/Hydraulic (HH) Report to provide scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow from the proposed roof drainage for all buildings are contained under the sidewalk at any proposed scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers on the proposed development plan. 10) Revise the FIRM Panel exhibit to correctly show the FEMA Floodway and floodplain limits per the effective FIRM Panel 1636L dated 29SEP08. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.2: Revise the location map on the development plan to label all major water courses adjacent to the project, i.e. Pima Canyon Wash. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J: Verify that all symbols used on the drawing are included within the legend, floodplain limits, Floodway limits, erosion hazard setback line, 50-foot Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) study area, etc. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The correct development plan number (D09-0026) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans where indicated by the "D09-00XX". 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Revise General Note #4 on Sheet 1 of the development plan to reference all special overlay zones. Specifically the note should also confirm conformance with Tucson Code "Sec.29-12 through 29-19 Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance." 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.b: Provide the following note on the Development Plan to read; "A floodplain use permit is required for all work proposed within the limits of the mapped 100-year floodplain, Floodway and erosion hazard setback area of the regulatory wash as shown on the Development Plan." The FUP will be required with the grading plan application submittal. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.3: Revise General Note #9 to include a reference of all lots impacted by the WASH ordinance. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Provide a letter of approval from all entities that have a vested interest in all existing easements where the proposed improvements are to be constructed. Specifically the existing telephone/telegraph easement (Keynote #15) and the existing Drainage Easement (Keynote #5). Improvements proposed within these easements must provide written approval from the owners stating their approval prior to development plan approval. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Revise the development plan to remove the portion of the existing easement that is proposed to be abandoned (Keynote #9). All easements that are to be abandoned must provide the recordation information for abandonment and then the easement must be removed from the plan sheets. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Revise the development plan to provide the following information for the existing public right-of-way: clearly labeled right-of-way widths, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. Label the roadway as "MS&R, Gateway Route and Public" per the MS&R right-of-way maps. 20) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.F: Revise the development plan to clearly label and dimension the existing culvert under the PAAL access point. Provide the Improvement Plan # reference for the existing drainage facilities. 21) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Revise the development plan to reflect the WASH overlay zone. The western portion of the lot is affected by the WASH ordinance associated with Pima Canyon Wash. The overlay zone must be approved prior to development plan approval. Please contact CDRC or Patricia Gehlen for further questions regarding the application for the WASH overlay zone. 22) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: The proposed parking structure and other improvements within the 50' WASH overlay zone are not approved at this time until further review and approval by CDRC. 23) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Revise the development plan to reference Pima Canyon Wash as a FEMA SFHA Zone AE Floodplain/Floodway as shown on the FEMA FIRM Panel 1636K, effective date 29SEP08 24) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.2: Revise development plan and HH report to provide a cross section with water surface elevation at the up stream end of the proposed parking structure. Verify that the lowest finished floor elevation is elevated 1-foot above the calculated WSEL. 25) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.3: Revise the legend on Sheet 1 of the development plan to provide the symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface elevation contour intervals as shown on the plan sheets. 26) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.A: Provide a cross access and cross parking agreement between the existing 2 lots. Or provide a lot combination approval through the Zoning Section. 27) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.2: Revise the development plan to indicate if existing streets are public or private. Label and dimension street widths, curbs, sidewalks and utility locations. Aerial view shows an electrical pole adjacent to the property and Oracle Road. 28) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan to dimension the PAAL entry width. Verify that the PAAL entry is a minimum 20-foot from all existing and/or proposed fire hydrants per Tucson Code Chapter 25-39. 29) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.F: Clearly label the existing/future MS&R right-of-way for Oracle Road. 30) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.F: Revise the development plan to provide the dimensions for all future road right-of-way improvements. Draw the MS&R future sidewalk and curb widths to verify that when future right-of-way is built out there will be sufficient room for all future curb and sidewalk. 31) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Provide on the development plan all information associated with the HH report. The following information must be indicated on the development plan: a) Provide details for existing or proposed spillways that are to be constructed within the Pima Canyon Wash. All work within the Pima Canyon Wash must comply with the WASH overlay ordinance and must have a right-of-way use permit before construction. b) Tucson Code Sec 26-5.2.4: The proposed development can not unnecessarily alter the regulated riparian habitat and 50-foot WASH study area that is located adjacent to the west property line. Review and approval of the proposed disturbance and mitigation is required by the Landscaping Section prior to development plan approval. c) Provide the location (label and dimension) all proposed storm drains, catch basins, grates, manholes, clean outs, etc. All storm drains must be clearly labeled to the size and type of proposed structure. Clean out and manholes are required at all junctions and bends within the storm drain system. d) Provide the additional cross section and WSEL for the upstream end of the proposed parking structure. e) Clearly label and dimension all proposed improvements for the erosion hazard cut-off wall and/or piers. Verify that the minimum requirements within the HH Report have been addressed and are shown on the plan sheets. 32) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. 33) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise the development plan and Keynote #37 to correctly label and dimension the future SVT (near and far side) for the PAAL access point. The dimensions for the future SVT should be measured from the future face of curb line once that dimension is added to the plan sheet. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 for SVT procedures and criteria. Also provide a landscape plan to reflect the SVT shown on the development plan. 34) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Provide a Landscape Plan to show the SVT, as shown on the development plan. Provide a note on the landscape plan to state no structures and vegetation is allowed within 30" to 72" in height and will not be placed within the SVT. 35) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Refer to Environmental Services comments, if applicable, for this project. Verify all radii proposed for refuse vehicle maneuverability meet the minimum 36-foot inside and 50-foot outside dimensions. 36) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on the development plan for grading plan verification purposes. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 37) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to existing channel. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. Specifically for the proposed erosion hazard wall and concrete columns. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed or reconstructed slopes. d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. GRADING PLAN: 38) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may be required for this project depending on the cut and fill quantities provided at resubmittal. If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards a grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after development plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the development plans 39) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the development plan and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 40) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements may be applicable to this project depending on the proposed acreage of disturbed area. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised development plan, revised Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report, a geotechnical report and the WASH overlay application that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the development plan, Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report and geotechnical report reviews. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/11/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | We have reviewed the Development Plans for Plaza Vega located on State Route (SR) 77 at 5151 North Oracle Road. The following comments are provided: 1. ADOT will require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the development. The TIA will help us to determine what improvements will be required on Oracle Road as a result of this development (existing use is commercial, office and retail -- proposed use is 42,093 Sq. Ft. of commercial, office, retail and restaurant space). 2. Provide the ADOT station for the centerline of the existing driveway. 3. Show and label the existing ADOT right-of-way line. 4. Show the existing Oracle Road geometrics on the Development Plans, including the existing signing and striping. 5. Show Genematas Drive on the Development Plans. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Development Plans. Maria Deal Southern Regional Traffic Engineering ADOT 1221 S. 2nd Ave. Tucson, AZ 85713 Phone #: 520-388-4235 ________________________________ 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 |
| 08/11/2009 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0026 Plaza Vega () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-89-16 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/12/09 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other - Color Elevations REVIEWER: msp 791-5505 DATE: 08/11/09 Planning & Development Services Department Community Planning Area-Comments D09-0026 Plaza Vega August 11, 2009 Staff offers the following comments: 1. Although not "planning land use issues" rezoning case C9-89-16, conditions of rezoning shall be addressed in the proposed redevelopment site design. The following conditions of rezoning apply, they are; 1.b, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (condition #5 has been revised to require a bus bench only). Please provide documentation/communication showing these items are under review by the appropriate City staff. 2. In addition, community planning staff offers the following information as reference only that needs to be addressed with the appropriate City agency/department/division, prior to approval of development plan, the issues are the following: 2.a. The proposed expansion of buildable area, which includes parking, PAALS, and structures, encroach into the Pima Wash protected riparian habitat areas. 2.b. The proposed expansion of buildable area encroaches into the 50' Wash Ordinance Study Area and the Erosion Hazard Setback Area. Items 2.a, and 2.b may need special approval, as may be determined by the appropriate City procedure of approval. Please provide documentation/communication showing these items are under review by the appropriate City staff. |
| 08/12/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans such that plantings in the vehicular use area do not interfere with the required parking spaces. Only very short plants should be indicated in the "vehicle overhang" area. Indicate the overhang area on the landscape plans. Within narrow planters trees should be located so that they are unlikely to be damaged by vehicles. DS 3-05.2.3.C., LUC 3.7.2.3.B 2) Add the CDRC case number to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 3) Clarify how the screening requirements of LUC Table 3.7.2-I are met at the western edge of the development. The height for screening is measured from the grade of the area that requires screening. 4) According to the COT map information and the WASH Ordinance, the wash along the site is commonly referred to as the Pima Wash. Revise the name on the plans. 5) Provide information on the water harvesting tank indicated on the landscape plan on the Development Plan. DS 2-05.2.4.I, LUC 3.2.5.2 6) Revise the plan to reference any of the following special overlay zones, such as WASH that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 7) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. Contact Patricia Gehlen/CDRC Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for submittal requirements. 8) The ERR proposes PRA encroachment that will need to be addressed by a DSMR. A written explanation as to why the development is necessary in the PRA should be submitted. DS 9-06.5.2 |
| 08/13/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D09-0026 Plaza Vega Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/13/2009 DUE DATE: 08/12/09 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 07/16/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.1.K The Annexation case number listed at the lower right corner is incorrect. Revise to C9-82-48. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D09-0026 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. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 In general note #3 list the proposed uses as follows: Administrative and Professional Office "29", Food Service "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.A and .C, and General Merchandise Sales "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.9.2.C 5. DS 2-05.2.2.B.6 List zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment (B/A) variance, by case number, date of approval, what was approved, and conditions of approval. See later comments regarding possible BOA variance for building height. Provide the conditions of rezoning (C0-89-16) on the development plan and provide a separate letter indicating how compliance with the rezoning conditions have been meet. 6. DS 2-05.2.3.B Provide on the development plan all easements. Indicate size, use and recording docket and page for all existing or proposed easements. If an easement is to be abandoned provide docket and page recording information on the development plan for the abandonment. 7. DS 2-05.2.3.C Provide the location of the future curb and future sight visibility triangles on the development plan. 8. 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 or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Forms may be found at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html 9. DS 2-05.2.4.B The zoning of the adjacent property along the north property line is split zoning. Clearly indicate the zoning line between the TR and the CR-1 Pima county zoning. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Clearly indicate the widths of all PAALs. Specifically the ramps for the parking garage. Indicate any and all retaining walls or barriers in this area. A 2' shy area is required adjacent to a PAAL (see DS 3-05.2.2.B.3) thus the ramps may be required to be a minimum 28' in width. Provide wheel stop curbing or barriers along the west and north side of this projects vehicle use area to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. See DS 3-05.2.3.C.1. Clearly indicate the degree of angle for the angled parking spaces. Required in order to determine the required PAAL width for one way use. See LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.I The setback for buildings #4 and #3 from the back of future curb is not indicated. Building #4 appears to have a wall height of 32'-6" above adjacent grade thus requiring a setback of 32'-6" from back of future curb along Oracle Rd. Provide the wall height for building #3 (from adjacent grade to top of parapet) and indicate the required setback from back of future curb (21' or the wall height whichever is greater minimum). 12. DS 2-05.2.4.K Clearly indicate the widths of all sidewalks and crosswalks. The pedestrian circulation path is required to connect to the bicycle parking spaces (north side of building #1) and trash enclosures (north side of property). The pedestrian circulation path is required to be constructed of concrete and be physically separated from vehicle use areas except at crosswalks (90 degrees to a PAAL) and a handicap access aisle. The striped asphalt parallel to the PAAL and between the standard parking spaces does not meet this requirement. The two crosswalks that intersect west of the new monument sign must be physically separated from the vehicle use area and each cross walk will be required to have a handicap ramp at the termination of each crosswalk. A sidewalk (min. 4' width) is required between a building and a parking space that is accessed by a PAAL. See DS 2-08.4.1.C. Required along the south side of building #3. Clearly indicate on the development plan the type of handicap ramp at the access aisle for the handicap parking spaces located just north of building #4 and at the southwest corner of building #3. 13. DS2-05.2.4.N On the development plan clearly indicate the height of all buildings. Per LUC Sec. 2.5.3 the development designator for the uses proposed are "28" and "29", both development designators per LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2 have a maximum building height of thirty (30) feet. The cross section A on sheet 2 of 4 indicates the proposed building #4 will have a height of forty seven (47) feet. A redesign of the project or a Board of Adjustment variance will be required to exceed the maximum allowed building height. The footprints of the buildings #1 and #2 do not appear to be correct in relation to the elevators indicated on the lower level parking plan on sheets 2 and 3 of 4. Revise. 14. DS 2-05.2.4.N The loading zone indicated in the lower parking level is required to have a minimum fifteen (15) feet clearance. Provide a dimension clearly indicating the required clearance for the loading zone and access to the loading zone. Clearly indicate the maneuverability in and out of the loading zones. See engineering comments. 15. DS 2-05.2.4.P A count of the parking spaces indicates a total of 199 parking spaces provided not the 205 indicated in the parking calculations. FYI: motor cycle parking spaces do not count towards required parking. A redesign will be required or application for reduction in required parking through the board of adjustment variance process. Provide wheel stop curbs in the parking spaces to prevent overhanging into the landscape areas (center aisle of parking, along the north side of the entrance PAAL), wheel stop curbs are also required to prevent vehicles from overhanging a sidewalk and limiting the width to less than 4' (parking spaces adjacent to building #4). Clearly indicate the location of all wheel stop curbs on the development plan and show the required 2'-6" setback from the front of the parking space. Clearly indicate the degree of angle for the angled parking spaces. See LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2. 16. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Clearly indicate the location of the required class 1 and class 2 bicycle parking spaces on the development plan. Clearly indicate in the calculations and on the plan the number of required and provided class 1 and class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not 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). Clearly indicate the location of the main entrances to the buildings. 17. DS 2-05.2.4.R Indicate the location of future sight visibility triangles. See engineering comments. 18. DS 2-05.2.4.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. 19. DS 2-05.2.4.W 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. 20. Based on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D09-0026dp.doc |
| 08/13/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/13/2009 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/14/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 4 - Masonry Refuse enclosure detail (2), Require three rear post barricades (bollards) for each container area. Dimension 2ft from side wall and subsequent two bollards 4ft equally. 2. Require a minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear container service area measured between the rear and side bollards to the center gate column/post. DS 6-01.4.1.B 3. DP - Manuverability around sw corner of building 3 not adequate. Must demonstrate a minimum 3ft clear space between the collection vehicle/turning radii and the parking stall, curb, or any structure. DS 6-01.3.1.A and refer to figure 1 of DS 6-01.0 4. Collection vehicle can not adequately position itself perpendicular to Bldg 3 enclosure without performing excess back-ups in front of drive through exit. If able to move enclosure west 10 ft then appears may work. DS 6-01.3.1.A 5. Require minimum 25 ft overhead clearance above enclosure/collection area and 15.5 ft over travel lane. Clarify overhead clearances for lower level parking structure. 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 |
| 08/14/2009 | 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: D09-0026 PLAZA VEGA/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 14, 2009 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. Delete address from Title Block on all sheets and add in notes as: “Project under address: 5151 N Oracle Rd”. Delete “-13-13” from Title Block on all sheets. Add Book and Page information for Maryland Hills Estates in Title Block on all sheets. Question: Will this property be combined? Question: Are building 1 and 2 connected with an entrance from one to the other? If so and they share the same roof, they would be considered one building. Please number accordingly. Note: ***Existing addresses are subject to change to be brought up to compliance with Chapter 18.83 of the Pima County Municipal Code (Address Standards)*** |
| 08/14/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/17/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/18/2009 | JWILLIA4 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 18, 2009 Sharon Bonesteel Bonesteel Inc. P.O. Box 36792 Tucson, Arizona 85740 Subject: D09-0026 Plaza Vega Development Plan Dear Sharon: Your submittal of July 17, 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 set of 11 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 11 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Fire, HC Site, Engineering, AZ DOT, Planning, Landscape, Zoning, ESD, Addressing, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Planning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Parcel Combo Documentation (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies WASH Overlay Application (Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (AZ DOT, TDOT, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: N/A Email: BonesteelAIA@msn.com |