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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0001
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/29/2010 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/30/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/31/2010 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approv-Cond | Approved if fire sprinklers are installed as stated in response letter. |
| 04/05/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: GEO-WRAP Solutions Development Plan (2nd Review) D10-0001 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 5, 2010 DUE DATE: April 26, 2010 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is January 11, 2011. 2. There are numerous structures south of the existing buildings that appear to be some type of shade structure. The structures are not shown on the last approved development plan therefore must be permitted or removed from site. Provide documentation that these structures have been permitted, or demolished from site, or show them as existing to be permitted. 3. General Note #8 remove "MAJOR" from between words "THE" & "OVERLAY" in the first line and revise "28.3" to read "2.8.3" in the second line. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Provide a general note stating that "THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE." 4. It is not clear how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 have been met for the east end of the PAAL, please clarify. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said demonstrate on the plan how this Development Standard has been met. 5. Remove the setback line shown on the plan. Provide setbacks dimensions for all of the following items. For your information based on Development Designator "29", Perimeter Yard Indicator "DD" the required setbacks to the R-1 and R-2 zoned property is 1 ½ times the height of the structures, required setbacks to the C-1 zoned property is 0, see LUC Section 3.2.6.4. The required street perimeter yard setback is based on 21' or the height of the structure, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of future curb. Show all required perimeter yard setbacks based on the above listed LUC Sections. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide building perimeter yard setback dimensions for all structures, buildings and shade structures, on site. See LUC Sections 3.2.6.4 & 3.2.6.5 for perimeter yard setback requirements 6. It is not clear on the plan that the striped area is a sidewalk, please clarify. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The striped area shown in what appears to be a landscape area is required to be a sidewalk. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Remove the lot coverage calculation from the plan as it is not applicable. Provide a Floor Area Ratio calculation per LUC Section 3.2.11. 8. This comment has not been addressed. There is no height provided for the existing shade structures that require permits. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N On the drawing, show the locations and footprints of all structures. Label the heights and dimensions. 9. This comment has not been addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Demonstrate the maneuvering area for the proposed loading space. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The 5'-0" access isle provided for the handicapped vehicle parking space does not meet the requirements for a van accessible vehicle parking space. This access isle should be 8'-0" wide see handicapped comments. 11. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D10-0001 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan & copy of the last approved development plan or site plan. |
| 04/07/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/07/2010, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Carbon-Wrap (formerly Geo-Wrap) Solutions D10-0001, T13S, R14E, SECTION 32 Ref. S07-082 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Landscape Plan on March 29, 2010 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: The proposed work appears to be at least 25% expansion, which requires the entire site to be brought up to code. Consequently, the following is required: 1. Address Christmas Wash Erosion Hazard setback and its impact on this development. According to the City's Floodplain Ordinance, habitable structures can not be built within the erosion hazard area. 2. If bank protection is considered for this project, analyze the impact of installing bank protection on the project side and check if bank protection is needed on both sides of the wash. Address back water issues with the installation of bank protection. Provide the bank protection design including toe downs, key-ins and material, etc. 3. It appears that the building's finished floor elevation is lower than Christmas Wash 100-year water surface elevation just upstream of the building. Since the cost proposed improvements appears to exceed the value of the existing buildings, this is considered substantial improvements and the entire building will have to be either raised above the regulatory flood elevation or the building has to be flood proofed. Address this issue and propose a solution for this issue. 4. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows all drainage patterns, solutions, structures, existing and proposed grades, etc. 5. Address roof drainage and water harvesting. Clarify how roof drainage will be directed towards waterharvesting basins. Design calculations for all proposed erosion control pads and sidewalk scuppers must be provided Development Plan: 1. (D.S. 2-05.2.1G.) The following title block information is to be provided, preferably in the lower right corner of the sheet: a. The proposed name of the project or, if there is no name, the proposed tenant's name or the property address. b. A brief legal description. The provided title block does not meet the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.2.1.G. 2. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.C.2.b) Since this project is affected by Christmas Wash regulatory floodplain, a floodplain use permit and finished floor elevation certificates are required. Submit a floodplain use permit application with the next submittal. 3. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A) Provide a tie between the basis of bearing and one of the parcel corners. 4. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B) All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. 5. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.D) The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property. Identifying the locations of all utilities and service equipment immediately adjacent to the project is especially important in situations where pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation or landscaping can be in conflict. By knowing the location of the existing utilities, design of the project can take those elements into consideration and can help avoid expensive and time-consuming relocation of utilities, major redesign, or requests to vary regulations after commencement of construction. 6. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F) Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown. 7. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I) Ensure that the datum used for the water surface elevations shall be the same datum used for the ground and building finished floor elevation. If the FIRM's use a different datum, provide the conversion equation and reflect this information on the Development Plan. 8. Show Christmas Wash water surface elevation cross sections as they are shown on the FIRM. 9. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.) Show the erosion hazard setback line from Christmas Wash. 10. Clarify keynote 1 shown inside a triangle. 11. It does not appear that the locations of footnotes B, D and E are shown on the plan. Revise as necessary. 12. Revise the Development Plan in accordance with the revised Drainage Report. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review. However, if the Development Plan is modified, the Landscape Plan shall be modified accordingly. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 04/09/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 9, 2010 To: STEVE CORRALES ENGINEERING CORP. CHARLES CORRALES 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: GEO-WRAP SOLUTIONS (2820 E FORT LOWELL) Development Plan– 2nd Submittal D10-0001 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. 2nd Request for all of the following comments Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, 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/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: 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 1: If no new sewer is proposed then add a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. Sheet 1: If new sewer is proposed then add a General Note that states: 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: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. Sheet 1: Show the IMS #’s for all of the existing public manholes on plan and include the rim and invert elevations. Sheet 1: Call out the sewer line shown on site as existing and private. Also call out the size/slope and length of the BCS on site. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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. |
| 04/20/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. As per 2006 IBC, Section 1106.5, the one accessible parking space must be a "Van Accessible Space" and needs to be 11' wide with a 5' aisle or 8' wide with an 8' wide aisle. Please modify dimensions for a "Van Accessible" space and provide a "Van Accessible" sign on sign post. The effected details are: The Development Plan and all relative details and plans on sheet 2 of 2. SUBMITTAL COMMENTS: OK 2. At the accessible parking aisle, the ramp shown is not compliable. Please provide a curb ramp in the sidewalk area as per ANSI, Section 406 and figure 406.3. The detectable warning strip is to be at the bottop of this ramp. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 2A. NON RESPONSIVE. SITE PLAN SHEET D1, AND ALL DETAILS SHOWING THE RAMP IN THE PARKING AISLE ARE NONCOMPLIANT. REVISE THE RAMP TO BE I9N THE SIDEWALK AND COMPLIANT WITH ICC (ANSI 117.1) SECTION 406.3. 3. Please show diagonial 4" painted stripes at the parking aisle and the marked crossing all the way to the Northerly curb line. The slope for the marked crossing is to comply with ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Section 403.3. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS 3A. NON RESPONSIVE 4. Provide an opening in the screen wall. Start a curb ramp, maximum slope 1:12, without flared sides and a detectable warning at the bottom of the ramp at this opening. Extend side walk to the existing public right of way pedestrian walkway. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 4A. THE SECTION THROUGH THE RAMP IS NOT COMPLIANT. PLEASE PROVIDE A CURB THAT IS COM,PLIANT WITH ICC (ANSI 117.1), SECTION 406.3 AND FIGURE 406.3 5. Provide a detail of the accessible parking sign including a "Van Accessible" attachment. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS 5A THE BOTTOM OF THE LARGE SIGN IS TO BE 7' ABOVE FINISHERD GRADE AS PER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. 6. That are a couple detail notes that refer to std detail 207. This is a COT DOT detail used strictly for right of way accessible construction and is not in compliance with the 2006 IBC Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI) 117.1 Please delete all references to detail 207. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS 6A. REFERENCE THE TITLE REFERENCE OF THE "HC RAMP DETAIL, TYP". 7. That are a couple detail notes that refer to ADA. This project is governed by the 2006 IBC which ultlizes ICC (ANSI) 117.1, 2003 Edition. Please delete all references to ADA. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS 7A. REFERENCE THE MARKED CROSSING NOTE AT THE DETAIL TITLED "ROUTE ACCESSIBLE PARKING LAYOUT". RESUBMITTRAL COMMENTS ADDITIONAL NOTES: 8. SHEET D1, NOTE "E": REMOVE ALL REFERENCE TO COT STANDARD DETAILS AND REFERENCE THE APPROPRIATE ICC (ANSI 117.1) SECTION. END OF RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| 04/21/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Any vegetation higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle LUC 3.7.3.4. Relocate Senna Artemisiodes out of SVT. |
| 04/22/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 22, 2010 Charles Corrales Steve Corrales Engineering Corporation 1008 W. St. Mary's Road Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: D10-0001 Geo-Wrap Solutions Development Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of January 11, 2010 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 7 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning HC, Landscape, PDSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $39.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. 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: (520) 622-2554 |