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 - D10-0002
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/21/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/26/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned/operated property |
| 01/27/2010 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/09/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Insure that the accessible parking sign is located outside the 18' x 8' accessible parking area, in the accessible route area. |
| 02/10/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 27, 2010 To: DOWL HKM RICHARD CORDOVA 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: RAYTHEON BUILDING 844 Development Plan– 1st Submittal D10-0002 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. 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/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: 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 5: Mark the 4” existing sewer line as private. Sheet 5: Show the end of the existing 4” sewer line. If it ends in a cleanout then show the rim and invert elevations. 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. |
| 02/18/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D10-0002 1151 E. Hermans Rd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL: 02/18/2010 DUE DATE: 02/19/10 COMMENTS: 1. Per discussion with Glen Moyer and Craig Gross the Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.7 This property is subject to annexation requirements, provide the applicable C9-__-__ or C15-__-__ annexation file number, in the lower right corner of each sheet. List the conditions of approval as a note. 3. DS 2-01.3.7.A.3 This development package has been assigned the case number D10-0002. Place the case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. 4. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a On detail 6 on sheet 7 of 15 clearly indicate the location of the wheel stops as being 2'-6" from the front of the parking space. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D10-0002dpca.doc Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02/18/2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: T10BU00110 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section and conditionally approves the grading plan once the plan has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. |
| 02/18/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 02/18/2010, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Raytheon Building 844 D10-0002, T15S, R14E, SECTION 19 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on January 25, 2010 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: Drainage Report: 1. Address the proximity of the wash, on the east side of the property, to the proposed improvements and analyze its potential impact on the proposed building. The wash does not appear to have been studied by FEMA. Perhaps, that is why the FIRM shows the area outside the 500-year floodplain. Ensure that the new building is not impacted by the wash 100-year floodplain. If the building is impacted, the finished floor elevation shall be raised at 1 foot above the 100-year water surface elevation and a floodplain use permit will be required. 2. Provide the calculations for all proposed drainage structures (i.e. scuppers, erosion control pads, channels, etc.). 3. It appears that all the Peak Flow Calculations, in Appendix B, are for existing conditions. Revise as necessary. 4. Identify the offsite watersheds that impact the site and quantify the amount of runoffs they generate. Use the City of Tucson "Flood Peak Estimator" method and provide the Hydrological Data Sheets for every watershed. Show, on the drainage exhibits, the different offsite watersheds that impact the site. 5. Show on the Drainage Exhibit all proposed drainage structure dimensions (i.e. the erosion control pads, number and size of all scuppers, etc.), drainage structure elevations (i.e. flow line and pipe invert elevations, etc.). The drainage information shown on the Site/Grading Plans shall match the information shown on the drainage exhibits. 6. Show all waterharvesting basins on Figure E-2 and show how the water will be directed towards the basins. 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". Weep holes may be incorporated in the waterharvesting design in order to minimize ponding time. 7. 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 Figure E-2 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. 8. Show on Figure E-2 all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage flow arrows, waterharvesting areas, inlets and outlets, sidewalk scuppers, cross section locations and details, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. The drainage information shown on the development plan and grading plan will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits. 9. Address drainage structures maintenance responsibility and provide a maintenance checklist. Every Page Package: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.3. 2. Revise every sheet in the document to provide a standard Title Block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet (D.S. 2-01.2.4) and (D.S. 2-01.3.2). Cover Sheet: 1. Show the existing wash, east of the proposed building, on the Location Map (D.S. 2-01.3.4.B). 2. Show the location of the basis of elevation. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. According to the City Surveyor, the Basis of Bearing either has to be related to a recorded bearing OR the basis of observation (i.e. NAD 83 or 29) must be stated, OR the it should be stated that the State Plane coordinates are based upon meters, international feet or U.S. survey feet and a reference the bearing between 2 existing monuments should be made. Additionally, provide the boundary lines bearings and distances, and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the project corners D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 2. Verify that the parcel does not have any existing easements. Provide a recent Title Report (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.). 3. Provide the name, right of way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Hermans Road (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C.). 4. Ensure that the Title Report is the most recent updated report and the easement information on the plans match the information in the report. 5. Show solid waste collection location (existing and proposed) (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T). General Notes: 1. If the project is impacted by the regulatory floodplain, add the following note: "A floodplain Use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.b). 2. Add the following Grading Notes: a. 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. b. 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. c. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). d. 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. e. 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. f. 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. g. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. h. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. i. As-builts and letters of completion for overall project are required. j. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. k. 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. l. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" Site/Grading Plan: 1. The Site/Development Plan shall include all the information required on the Base Plan including property lines bearings and distances. 2. Although a Demolition Plan is included in the Package, The existing buildings proposed to be replaced have already been removed and the ground has been prepared for the new building. Since the plans are still being reviewed and permits have not been issued, the non-permitted construction work must halt. 3. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the grading legend. 4. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses slope treatment and stabilization. 5. The proposed water harvesting areas, west of the building appear to be too close to the proposed building. The geotechnical report shall address this issue and propose a minimum set back between the building and ponding water. 6. Is the proposed DG walkway going to be stabilized? 7. Show existing onsite and offsite storm drainage facilities, if applicable, as required by D.S. 2-01.3.8.F. 8. Show floodplain information, including location of 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations if applicable (D.S. 2-01.3.8.I.). 9. Show onsite existing and proposed walkways dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4. 10. Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. Provide all applicable information as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.1. Show the parking lot and its access with all required dimensions and radii. 11. Provide sight visibility triangles as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2. 12. Show the P.A.A.L's as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5. 13. Show all proposed easements with their dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 14. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 15. Provide locations and types of drainage structures as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3 if applicable. 16. Show building setbacks from ponding water based on the recommendation of the Geotechnical report (D.S. 2-01.3.9.O). 17. Show onsite pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC and Development Standard 3-01.0 (D.S. 2-01.3.9.R). 18. Show refuse collection areas as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.T. Additionally, either provide the standard structural details for the trash enclosure or reference the trash enclosure standard detail. 19. Since the disturbed area exceeds one acre, a SWPPP is required. 20. Will the runoff be sheet flowing across the proposed DG walkway east of the existing building shown on Sheet 5 of 15? If not, scuppers might be needed. 21. Show existing and proposed wheelchair ramps with truncated domes. Existing wheelchair ramps shall be retrofitted with truncated domes. Revise the information on the site plan accordingly. 22. Clarify how the surface runoff is directed towards the waterharvesting basins. 23. Verify that waterharvesting areas ponding depth will not exceed 6". Provide any drainage structure that will ensure the maximum ponding depth. 24. Bleed pipes may be utilized for waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. 25. Provide the construction details for the proposed retaining walls (i.e. height, depth under ground, size, material, etc.). Provide cross section details at locations where retaining walls are proposed. 26. Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how the building roof will drain. 27. Provide the dimensions of any proposed riprap pads. 28. Provide all slopes ratios and dimensions if applicable. 29. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: Landscape Plan is acceptable by Engineering and Floodplain Review. Geotechnical Report: Provide a geotechnical report that addresses the following: 1. The recommended fill/cut slope treatment and stabilization if applicable. 2. The required building setback from ponding water in waterharvesting areas. SWPPP: Provide a copy f the SWPPP and add the plan sheets to the Development Package. This Office recommends a meeting with the engineer of record, before the next submittal, to discuss the Engineer's response to the comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, SWPPP, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report |
| 02/19/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The provisions of LUC 3.7 Landscape and Screening Regulations apply to: A. All new development. B. Expansion of existing development. 1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows. a. If the expansion is less than twenty-five (25) percent, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval. As it is clear that the expansion is less than 25% the only requirements for existing development is to verify and document on the plans the landscaping required per the previous zoning approval. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 2) New development on the site is subject to the LUC and associated development Standards. Specific items noted include: A) Grading limits required on the Grading and Native Plant Preservation Plans. DS 2-15.3.4.A B) The planting does not coordinate with general note 10 on sheet 9 or the provisions of LUC 3.7.2.4. Revise as necessary and update the coverage calculations on sheet 11. C) Any required storm water detention/retention basins (water harvesting) shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A D) The alternate planting plan on sheet 12 more closely approximates code compliance. E) Show existing plants numbered 18-22 on the NPP Plan on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e F) Identification of any regulatory floodplain on the Development Plan. DS 9-06.2.4 |
| 02/23/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 23, 2010 Richard Cordova DOWL HKM 166 W. Alameda St. Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D10-0002 Raytheon Building # 844 Development Package Dear Richard: Your submittal of January 25, 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 6 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Package (HC Site, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies SWPPP Documentation (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check $100 made out to "Pima County Treasurer" (Wastewater Fees) 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) 624-0384 |
| 02/23/2010 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#221188 February 22, 2010 Dear Mr. Cordova: SUBJECT: Raytheon Building #844 D10-0002 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted February 8, 2010. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. On the Electric facilities plan it is labeled as OHE instead of UGE Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Please call the area Designer Jennifer Wojnar at (520) 917-8717, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures City of Tucson (Email only) cc:J. Wojnar |