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 - D10-0011
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/07/2010 | TOM FISHER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Approved | per verbal discussion with Gary Wittwer |
| 05/13/2010 | 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 (2nd Review) D10-0011 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 13, 2010 DUE DATE: May 20, 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. Once the DRB is completed provide the DRB number date of approval and any conditions of approval on the plan. 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.9.2.A should follow General Merchandise Sales "36". Since Food Service "36" has been added to General Not 3 Provide the subject to section 3.5.4.6.C following Food Service. 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 5. 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. 6. Provide the DSMR or MDR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions that may apply on the plan. 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. 7. Provide the MDR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions that may apply on the plan. 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. 8. This comment was not fully addressed. Sheet a2.0 detail 1, parking space located along the east side of structure adjacent to Stair 4, provide a dimension that shows that the vehicle parking space meets the 10' width. Sheet a3.0 detail 1 & 2 southeast corner storage area, provide a dimension from the proposed fence to the parking space to the west. Sheet a3.0 detail 3 southeast corner storage area, provide a dimension from the proposed fence to the parking space to the north and west. Sheet a3.0 detail 3 southwest corner storage area, provide a dimension from the proposed fence to the parking space to the north and east. Sheet a3.0 detail 3 northwest Stair 1, provide a dimension from the wall to the parking space to the north. 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. 9. Provide the MDR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions that may apply on the plan. 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. 10. Provide the MDR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions that may apply on the plan. 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. 11. This comment was not fully addressed, provide dimensions on the plan that show how D.S. 2-09.5.1.A Minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks. (Figure 9)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. 2-09.5.1.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. 12. Once approved provide a copy of the Right of Way use agreement. 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. 13. Once the DRB is completed provide the DRB number date of approval and any conditions of approval on the plan 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. 14. Once approved provide a copy of the Right of Way use agreement. 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. 15. It appears that the proposed continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route that connects to the sidewalk along 6th Avenue runs through a proposed lease space, demonstrate on the plan this route will remain accessible to the public once this space is leased. Provide the MDR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions that may apply on the plan. 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. 16. 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 (2nd Review) T10BU00443 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 13, 2010 DUE DATE: May 20, 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 |
| 05/13/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 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 Add DRB case number to the plans. |
| 05/14/2010 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/17/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 MICHAEL GRITZUK, P.E. PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 May 14, 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), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: UNISOURCE ENERGY TOWER Development Plan– 2nd Submittal D10-0011 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. This comment letter has been reviewed and accepted for substantial conformance to Pima County Code Title 13 by: ___________________________ Kristin (Borer) Greene, P.E., Civil Engineer PCRWRD, Planning Services Section, Development Liaison Unit cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Borer, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 05/18/2010 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DETAIL NOS. 1/A1.0 AND 1/A4.0 1. Where the accessible route crosses the Service Exit Drive, please provide a marked crossing with diagonal markings the width of the crossing and detectable warnings at both sides just prior to the edge of the drive. 2. Please provide directional signage from the accessible parking spaces to the front entrance of the facility. 3. Please provide handrails details and elevations of the handrail required at the ramp just South of the most Easterly stair well. 4. Please provide a detail of the hanging accessible parking sign. DETAIL 1/A1.0 5. The pedestrian access to 6th Avenue must be accessible. There are two pedestrian ways connected to the 6th Avenue right of way and neither is accessible. a. The connection shown in the utility corridor is not accessible as the public is not allowed in this area. b. The connection to 6th Av. from the parking area does not have an accessible route to the accessible parking spaces. c. Please reference Zoning comments 6. At the sloped walkway in the garage leading to 6th Av., the higher sloped walkway exceeds a 5% slope and must comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 406, Ramps and will need handrails on both sides and a 5' deep landing at the top. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/18/2010 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 05/19/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/19/2010, 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 May 06, 2010 The subject submittal has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable for Development Package purposes and it is hereby approved. Additional drainage information may be required during site grading. The Development Package is recommended for conditional approval pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review subject to the following: 1. Provide, on the Development Package mylar, the bearing for the tie between the basis of bearing and the subject parcel 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. Provide three copies of the SWPPP. 3. Project approval by all other reviewers. |
| 05/19/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/19/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/19/2010, 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 May 06, 2010 The subject submittal has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable for Development Package purposes and it is hereby approved. Additional drainage information may be required during site grading. The Development Package is recommended for conditional approval pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review subject to the following: 1. Provide, on the Development Package mylar, the bearing for the tie between the basis of bearing and the subject parcel 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. Provide three copies of the SWPPP. 3. Project approval by all other reviewers. |
| 05/21/2010 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 21, 2010 Ed Marley, AIA, LEED Swaim Associates, Ltd. Architects, AIA 7350 E. Speedway. Suite 210 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D10-0011 Unisource Energy Tower Development Package Dear Ed: The above referenced development plan has been CONDITIONALLY APPROVED by the Community Design Review Committee. Once the necessary corrections are made per the on line comments, please submit the following documents for sign-off. 1 Rolled blue line COMPLETE SET of the Development Package, Landscape Plan, and the Native Plant Preservation Plan (if part of the original submittal). Please include applicable sheets from any other concurrent reviews. 2 Copy of Complete SWPPP. 1 CD that contains all of the drainage/hydrology and other reports submitted for the review and approval of this plan. Additional black line copies will be made from the complete set and distributed to various review agencies for their files. These copies will be ordered from the City's contracted print company and billed to you unless you already have an account at another printing company. Please let us know which printing company you would prefer to use and list them on your attached transmittal form when submitting your plans to the CDRC office for sign-off approval. Your printing company will deliver the original rolled blue lines to your office. If you are out of town you will need to contact the printing company for pick up or mailing arrangement options. PLEASE HAVE THE CITY OF TUCSON APPROVAL STAMP PLACED ON EACH SHEET OF THE SUBMITTAL SET, PREFERABLY IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER NEAR THE TITLE BLOCK. THE STAMP IS LOCATED AT http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/CDRC___Rezoning/CDRC/CDRC_Stamp/cdrc_stamp.html BLUELINE SETS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE STAMP WILL BE RETURNED FOR CORRECTION. The final plans may not be submitted for final review and approval until all code exceptions have been approved and required notes and case numbers are placed on all sheets of the plan set. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: 326-1148 |