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 - D10-0011
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/17/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/18/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/24/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET A1.0 1. Please provide a marked crossing at the service road from the elevator lobby entrance to the parking lot as per 2006 IBC, ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Sections 406.12 and 506.14. 2. Zoning may require additional access pedestrian walkways to both 6th and 12th Streets. If requirements are so, these routes must be accessible as per Section 1104 and ICC Section 402. Reference Zoning comments. 3. For the entire new development, please provide spot grades and design slopes for all accessible routes required as per 2006 IBC, Section 1104 and ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 402 and for slopes Section 403.3. a. There appears to be a ramped sidewalk in front of the new lease space areas leading to an entrance step up, please clarify. b. If the accessible route in front of the accessible parking spaces is flush with the asphaltic paving, please indicate so. If not, please provide required ramps. 4. The "Van Accessible" space located at the Southern end has no access aisle. Please show how access is achieved to the accessible route, curb ramp? 5. Please confirm door clearance requirements at all stair exit doors to the parking area, parking lot double door entrance to the lobby and all door openings onto an accessible route or those that are required exits. This requirement is for all levels. 6. Please provide large scale details of actual design of parking spaces, curb ramps, sidewalk ramps and marked crossings. Show all critical accessible requirements, dimensions, signage, slopes and handrails. Please provide a large scale detail elevation of any and all handrails as required. 7. Please provide a detail of the accessible parking signage indicated by note 27. SHEET A2.0 8. Because of the small scale floor plans for the two levels below grade and three levels above grade and lack of detail provided, a comprehensive accessible review is not available. Please provide completed, 1:20 scale floor plans for each level showing all critical accessible details as per the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI) 117.1. LEVELS P3 AND P2 9. Please clarify the following: a. Access to occupiable portion of building b. What accessible provisions are available for access to the elevators when the occupiable spaces are secured? c. Please provide accessible route to the exit stair. d. Insure clearance space is available at all stair doors as per ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Section 404.2.3.1. e. Please clarify all slopes and finished floor elevations f. Show accessible route to escalator. SHEET A3.0 10. At detail 2/A3.0 please delete all reference to ADA and make reference to 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI) 117.1 and the specific sections that apply to the specific accessible requirement condition. 11. Detail 1A/3.0, generic accessible parking details are not acceptable. Please provide a large scale detail that is as the design shown on the architectural plans. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/26/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Comments: Sheet A 1.0 Show how access is proveided to the Fire Fighter Command Station required by IBC Section 403.8.and IFC Section 911. Sheets C3.1 and C3.2 Sheet C3.1 show the Scoot sections as 2 on C3.2 North and 1 on 3.2 South. Section 1 on 3.2 appears to be the North section. The roll curb for fire access is required on the North Sedtion. Sheet C4.0 The proposed fire line in notes 2 and 3 does not meet the burial depth required by NFPA 13 and 24 (30 inches). |
| 03/26/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Enginerring and Floodplain Review, 03/26/2010, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Unisource Energy Tower D10-0011, T14S, R13E, SECTION 13 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on March 19, 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 drainage facilities maintenance responsibility and provide a maintenance checklist. 2. Provide larger scale drainage exhibits for clarity. 3. The text describes three curb inlets on the east side of 6th Avenue. The Drainage Concept Plan shows only two inlets. Revise as necessary. Revise the Site/Grading Plan accordingly. 4. Provide the applied clogging factor data, in Appendix B, that reduced the lengths of the curb opening inlets. 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. Every Page Package: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number and T10BU_______ grading plan number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.3. Cover Sheet: 1. Provide the mailing and email address, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site (D.S. 2-01.3.1). BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. Show the basis of bearings between two (2) found, physically monumented points described and shown on the Base Layer. Additionally, provide a tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corner monuments in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.3.A., D.S. 2-03.2.3.B and D.S. 2-01.3.8.A. 2. Show the location of the Basis of Elevation. 3. Verify that the parcel does not have any existing easements. Provide a recent Title Report if necessary (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.). Ensure that the Title Report is the most recent updated report and the easement information on the plans match the information in the report. 4. Provide type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for all adjacent public streets (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C.). 5. All proposed easements shall be described and dimensioned. The dedication of the proposed easements shall be processed and the recordation information shall be provided (D.S. 2-01.3.9.L.). General Notes: 1. Add the following Grading Notes: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. g. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. h. As-builts and letters of completion for overall project are required. i. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. j. 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. Site/Grading Plan: 1. It appears that the locations of Keynotes 9, 26, 41 and 42 are not shown on Sheet 2 of 26. Revise as necessary. 2. It appears that the location of Keynote 6, near the 6th Avenue northern entrance, is not correct. Revise. 3. Show the third curb inlet on the east side of 6th Avenue (D.S.2-01.3.8.F). 4. The proposed sidewalk on 12th Street and Scott Avenue and shall be 5' wide. The proposed sidewalks on Broadway and 6th Avenue shall be 6 feet wide. Revise the plan accordingly (D.S. 2-01.3.9H.1). 5. 6th Avenue is considered a collector street. The sight visibility triangles lengths shall be 265' for near side and 110' for far side. Revise Sheet 2 of 26 accordingly. Additionally, provide the sight visibility triangles lengths for Scott Avenue entrances and at Broadway Boulevard intersection with 6th and Scott Avenues (D.S. 2-01.3.9H.2). 6. Provide all internal curve radii (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.) and (D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.3.). 7. It appears that the proposed loading zones may not be accessible to larger trucks. Address this issue and revise as necessary (D.S. 2-01.3.9H.5.c.). 8. Dimension the concrete walk in Detail 1/a2.0. 9. Dimension the sight visibility triangles in Details 4/A3.0 and 5/A3.0. 10. Provide the lengths of the proposed curb removals shown on Sheet 5 of 26. 11. Provide the Curb Access Ramp Standard Detail Number 207 on Sheet 8 of 26 (i.e. Details 1/C3.0 and 2/C3.0). Revise General Note #3, on Sheet 8 of 26, and Grading Notes #6 and #7, on Sheet 9 of 26, accordingly. 12. The width dimensions, on Detail 1/C3.4 do not appear to add up. The total opening width is 6' yet the dimensions between the posts and both edges of the opening add up to a maximum of 15'. Revise as necessary. 13. The locations of Keynote #18 along Scott Avenue, on Sheet 9 of 26, appear to be incorrect. Revise as needed. 14. Indicate, more clearly, 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. Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points to provide reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.4.). 16. Show onsite existing and proposed walkways dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4. 17. Show all proposed easements with their dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 18. Clarify if the Broadway improvements will be constructed with this project or they will be constructed later by the City. 19. Provide locations and types of all proposed drainage structures, if applicable, as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3. 20. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the grading legend. 21. Provide how much of the entire parcel will be disturbed. 22. It appears that the ground elevation adjacent to the proposed building is higher that the building finished floor elevation, yet the grade is shown to slope away from the building. Address this issue and provide additional grades to clarify the proposed site finished grades. 23. Clarify, on the plan, how drainage will be prevented from going down into the lower parking garage. Provide 24. It appears that the location of Hardscape Keynotes #3 and #17 are not shown on Sheet 18 of 26. Revise as necessary. 25. Complete the elevation data in Note 6 on Sheet 11 of 26. 26. Complete the elevation data in Note 12 on Sheet 13 of 26. 27. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: Landscape Plan is acceptable by Engineering and Floodplain Review. Ensure that proposed plants within the sight visibility triangles do not obstruct visibility as required by Development Standard 3-01.0 Geotechnical Report: Provide a geotechnical report that addresses the proposed excavation for the underground parking. The report shall make recommendations concerning the required support for the excavation walls to prevent any soil collapse that might affect the adjacent public right of way and streets. SWPPP: 1. Complete the project case numbers on Page One of the SWPPP 2. Revise the "sequential of major construction activities" to include, as the first two activities, determining the disturbance limits, and installing the proposed BMP's within these limits. 3. Include a copy of the completed (filled out and 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. 4. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 5. 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. 6. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 7. Identify, if applicable, the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4). 8. Identify any water bodies on the site. If there are no water bodies, indicate this on the map (Part III.C.3.f). 9. Provide on the SWPPP (i.e. either Sheet 16 or 17 of 26, the telephone numbers of all governmental agencies that need to be contacted in case of a spill. 10. The SWPPP shall be stamped by the Engineer who prepared it including the exhibits. 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 |
| 03/29/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Unisource Energy Tower Development Package (1st Review) D10-0011 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 31, 2010 DUE DATE: March 31, 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 package. If, at the end of that time, the development package 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 March 18, 2011 2. This development package was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance. 3. Applications for projects within the Rio Nuevo and Downtown (RND) Zone shall be reviewed in accordance with the Administrative Design Review Procedures, 23A-32. The application must include a Design Context and Compatibility Report in conformance with Development Standard 9-10.2.0. Applications shall be subject to the following level of review. Major Project Design Review. Applications which have completed the major review process which shall be reviewed to verify incorporation into the final plans and drawings the preliminary findings and recommendations of the Development Review Board (DRB) rendered in the major review. 4. Provide enlarged details of all levels of the parking structure so that all requirements of the LUC and D.S. can be verified. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet, D10-0011. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.4.C Label section corners, 7 & 18 on the location map. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. Revise General Note 3 to show the proposed uses as "ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE "36" & GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES "36", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.9.2.A 8. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 As "SERVICE" is not a use listed within the LUC please clarify what the "SERVICE" use is that is called out under the floor area ratio calculation. Once clarified the square footage for this area may effect other calculation such as vehicle parking, and loading spaces. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Sheet A1.0 keynote15 calls out a grease interceptor, if food service is proposed add the use and subject to, to general note 3. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.Provide the Design Review Board (DRB) case number, in the lower right corner of each sheet. Zoning acknowledges General Note 17, provide the date of approval and if applicable provide what was approved and any conditions of approval. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Revise General Note 16 to include "SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE; SEC. 2.8.4, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE". 12. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A There is a small portion of land 12.08 x 77.72 show along Scott Avenue. Per a discussion with COT Real Estate this portion of land has be deeded back to the City of Tucson. Please remove this from the drawings and revise all applicable calculations. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E This site comprises several parcels. These parcels need to be combined for this project. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor Combination Request Form and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property prior to approval of this development package. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Along the East side of this project there are areas showing parallel parking spaces within the sight visibility triangles (SVTs). Per D.S. 3-01.5.A.1 Lines of sight will not be obscured between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet through a triangular area adjacent to a driveway, a PAAL, an alley, or a street. Parking vehicles would encroach into the thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet area. If this work is to be done by the City of Tucson (COT) remove it from this plan. If not the parking within the SVTs may require a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR), contact COT Transportation Department. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 For all Parking Area Access Lanes (PAALs) clarify if they are one-way or two-way. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet A1.0 the two-way PAAL that provides access to the loading spaces and refuse areas does not appear to meet the minimum 24' width adjacent to the recycling compactor. Provide a dimension from curb to curb. A (DSMR) or Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) maybe required prior to approval of this plan. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 & D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet A1.0 the PAAL that provides access to the loading spaces and refuse areas clearly show how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B are met along the entire PAAL. A (DSMR) or Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) maybe required prior to approval of this plan. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet A1.0 at the stair wells for the parking structure clearly show how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B are met. A (DSMR) or Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) maybe required prior to approval of this plan. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet A2.0 demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B are met for all levels of the parking structure. A (DSMR) or Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) maybe required prior to approval of this plan. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.4.a The minimum height clearance for access along PAALs is fifteen (15) feet. The height is needed for high-profile vehicles, such as sanitation, fire, or delivery vehicles. Demonstrate on the plan how this section is met. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet A1.0 along the south side of the development there are ramps shown going up and down, both are called out as 24' wide, both appear to show some type of controlled access that reduces the width of the PAAL to less than 24', please clarify if these PAALs are one-way or two-way and indentify what appears to be controlled access. 22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheets A1.0 & A2.0 there are numerous building columns shown that encroach into the minimum 18' space depth for a standard vehicle parking space. If these spaces are proposed as compact vehicle spaces provide a parking space calculation that demonstrates that the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.7.2.C.1 have been met. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet A1.0 there is a van accessible vehicle parking space shown along the west side that does not have the required access isle. 24. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet A2.0 there appears to be numerous parking spaces that are adjacent to and enclosed structure. Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.1.3 are met. A (DSMR) or Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) maybe required prior to approval of this plan. 25. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking space calculation does not provide the number required. Provide the number required along with the ratio use on the plan. It appears that the provided number is less than what would be required for this project. Until the "Service" area is clarified, see comment 8, the total required vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. An approved Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) may be required prior to approval of this plan. 26. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The loading space calculation does not appear to be correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.3.3 Calculations for Loading Spaces. The calculation for the required number of loading spaces is based on the proposed land use and the size of the project as provided in Sec. 3.4.5. The size of the project is the gross floor area of the use, including any outdoor area dedicated to the use, but excluding vehicular use areas. If the proposed development is a mixed use project, the loading space requirements for the project shall be the sum of the individual requirements of the various land uses computed separately. Based on 239,271 sq. ft of office space and LUC Section 3.4.5.5 three (3) loading spaces are required, 8,420 sq. ft of retail and LUC Section 3.4.5.3 one (1) loading space is required. Until the "Service" area is clarified, see comment 8, the total required loading spaces cannot be verified. An approved Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) may be required prior to approval of this plan. 27. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d There are two different Class 2 bicycle details in this package, one on sheet A2.0 and one on Sheet A3.0. The detail on sheet A2.0 does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.A Minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks. (Figure 9), and it does not demonstrate the requirement of D.S. 2-09.5.2 a five (5) foot wide access aisle. The detail on sheet A3.0 does not match what is shown on sheet A1.0 and called out under keynote 35. Please provide one (1) detail that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.0. 28. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Sheet A1.0 shows the proposed bicycle parking located in the right of way (ROW) Contact COT Real Estate Department or Transportation Department in regards to the requirements for building with in the ROW. 29. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B the required street perimeter yard setbacks is 21' or the height of the proposed exterior building wall, which ever is greatest. Based on the height of the building provided in sheet G1.0 of 169' the required perimeter yard would be the height of the building. Zoning acknowledges that per LUC Section 2.8.10.5.B All new construction shall maintain the prevailing setback existing within its development zone. The Design Review Board (DRB) must approve the prevailing setbacks prior to approval by zoning. 30. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O It appears that there are proposed structures within the right-of-way (ROW). Contact COT Real Estate Department or Transportation Department in regards to the requirements for building with in the ROW. 31. D.S. 2-01.3.9.T Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 Within a development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. That said it does not appear that the required pedestrian circulation path/accessible route has been provided to the sidewalk along 12th Street. Also it does not appear that an accessible route as been provided to 6th or Scott Avenue. 32. 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/ D10-0009 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan & copy of the last approved development plan or site plan. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Unisource Energy Tower Development Package (1st Review) T10BU00443 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 31, 2010 DUE DATE: March 31, 2010 GRADING 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. 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 cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/31/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 31, 2010 To: SWAIM ASSOCIATES, LTD ARCHITECTS, AIA EDWARD T MARLEY 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: UNISOURCE ENERGY TOWER Development Plan– 1st Submittal D10-0011 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. 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 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 13: The proposed Manhole #1 should be called out as public not private. Also a 20’ x 20’ public sewer easement with recordation information will need to created, centered over the proposed public Manhole #1. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 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 (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. |
| 03/31/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | List the species proposed for the seed mix. DS 2-16.4.2 & 4.4 Seed selection may be made from Exhibit I, Native Seeds. If the proposed seed is not on the comprehensive list, Exhibit I, nor in Exhibit II, it may be used if: A. The seed species is drought tolerant and a seed supplier certification of drought tolerancy is submitted; and B. The City can certify through a third party the seed species' drought tolerancy; and C. The proposed seed species is not for landscaping public right-of-way, unless it is to comply with SCZ or ERZ requirements; and D. The seed species has not been considered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and rejected. Provide an expanded explanation for the "Downtown Development- No Border Required" note on sheet l3.1. The note is correct if the "ground level story of a building containing a parking structure is not used for motor vehicle parking or if the parking structure is completely screened and enclosed by a masonry wall" per LUC 3.7.2.4.C. Provide information on the screening proposed for parking areas. Revise the plans as necessary to coordinate with requests from other review agencies and incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Development Review Board (DRB). LUC 2.8.10.4.C.5 |
| 03/31/2010 | TOM FISHER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Denied | >>> Gary Wittwer 03/30/2010 12:07 PM >>> I have reviewed this project and have the following comments: 1. Please add a Note: The owner will assume all Liability and Maintenance responsibilities for landscape and irrigation within the ROW. This will include irrigation damage to sidewalk, curb and roadway. 2. The existing Landscape along Scott to be replaced shall be salvages and given to the City. 3. We have an existing irrigation system that will need to be modified, a controller that will need to be relocated with wires and possible mainline. We also have a future system connection to the Scott Ave meter along Broadway. This needs to be coordinated. 4. Please add a note - No irrigation valves, or mainline will be located within the ROW. The owner will take responsibility for "Blue Stake"? 5. Concrete pavers in roadway on Broadway and 6th will need to be approved by Traffic Engineering. 6. The three Hackberry trees on 6th near the Generator may be too close to the Travel Lane. They will need to be pruned up to 15' for bus and truck clearance. You make the call. 7. I am concerned with pedestrian safety with the planting ov Yucca rupcola - they should be set back a minimum of 4' off the sidewalk. 8. You are calling our for very large trees - that's great, but please be sure that they fit inside the concrete header/grates. We also have found that there is no good way to stake them if they need it. This is a nice project Eric. Let me know if you have questions. |
| 04/01/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | March 31, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0011 PROJECT NAME: Unisource Corp PROJECT ADDRESS: Broadway/Scott PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or TIA; therefore a revised Development Plan and TIA are required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan/TIA. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Striping along 6th Avenue shall be modified to accommodate left turn movements into the 6th Avenue garage entrance. The existing southbound left turn bay on 6th Avenue for motorists turning onto 12th Street will need to be maintained after the opening of the 6th Avenue garage entrance. Schematically illustrate the striping revision on the Development Plan. 2. TDOT-Traffic is concern with the proposed single ingress/egress entrance into the garage for the 460 Unisource employees via a single driveway on Scott Avenue. The existing conditions of Scott Avenue may not be suitable for the forecasted volumes of this development for the following reasons: - Scott Avenue is a two-lane, two-way roadway with no refuge for left turn movements for southbound employees entering the garage from Scott Avenue. - The proposed gated entrance into the garage will increase the delays and queue lengths along Scott Avenue in the southbound direction. - The total Scott Avenue southbound AM peak hour volumes at 2011 (Exhibit 16) will more then double versus the existing volumes (Exhibit 7) - Scott Avenue left turn southbound motorists will experience additional delays due to an increase of opposing northbound movements (Exhibit 14) - Broadway Blvd is less then 250 feet away from the garage entrance. The 5 factors noted above will potentially create queue lengths that will extend into Broadway Blvd and the future streetcar alignment. Re-evaluate the proposed traffic circulation for this development. Providing a secondary entrance on 6th Avenue will assist in minimizing the noted impacts to Scott Avenue. 3. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. Permits and Codes are receptive to starting the PIA review process with the re-submittal of the development plan. Contact Permits and Codes for additional PIA information at 791-5100. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/05/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 5, 2010 Edward T. Marley, AIA, LEED ap Swaim Associates, Ltd. Architects, AIA 7350 E. Speedway Blvd, # 210 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D10-0011 Unisource Energy Tower Development Package Dear Edward: Your submittal of March 18, 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 10 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Package (HC Site, Engineering, Fire, Zoning, Landscape, TDOT, Wastewater, Traffic, Real Estate, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP Documents (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised TIA (Traffic, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $100 (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) 326-1148 |
| 04/05/2010 | JWILLIA4 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | No comment with regards to the plans. Please contact James Rossi in the Real Estate Division at 837-6718 regarding the Deed for Scott Ave right of way being conveyed back to the City. |