Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0015
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/14/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/17/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/24/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Bureau of Land Management Office Building Development Package (1st Review) D10-0015 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 24, 2010 DUE DATE: June 15, 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 May 13, 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. As this project comprises two (2) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request Form and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with the next submittal. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.1 As this parcel has split zoning General Note 2 should include C-2 zoning. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b As this parcel has split zoning the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) should be based on the area of the site within the I-1 Zone. Revise the FAR calculation to include only the area of the site within the I-1 zone. Zoning acknowledges that this project will not exceed the FAR. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined, that said clearly indicate on the plan the C-2 zoning located along the northwest portion of this site. Also provide the zoning for the parcel located south of University Way. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.D A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. That said provide dimension that show the above requirements are met at the proposed gate on the north side of the proposed building. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 There are two (2) proposed gates that appear to encroach into the minimum width of the twenty-four (24) foot parking area access land (PAAL). Clarify the clear opening for these gates. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a There are numerous vehicle parking spaces shown along the sidewalk near the building. The sidewalk appears to only be four (4) foot wide therefore all of these vehicle parking spaces will require wheel stops to prevent vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The provided vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The use shown on the plan is "Administration & Professional Offices" therefore all gross floor area and outside storage is parked at on vehicle parking spaces per 200 sq .ft of gross floor area. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Revise the loading space calculation to include the outside storage area in the square footage. Zoning acknowledges that this will not change the loading space requirement. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Once comment 10 above is addressed Zoning can verify the required number of bicycle parking spaces. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q The allowed "BUIDLING HEIGHT 75'" shown under "PARKING CALCUALTIONS #2" is not correct. Per the annexation conditions "4. The I-1 (r) portions shall be limited to a height of 39 feet". 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Demonstrate on the plan that the proposed handicapped signage, for the handicapped vehicle parking spaces shown directly east of the proposed building, do not encroach into the minimum four (4) foot width of the sidewalk. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R There is a proposed sidewalk shown running along the west side of the parcel that extends up to Valencia Road. Provide a pedestrian access easement across the property to the north. Show the easement graphically on the plan along with the recordation information. For your information this is not a required sidewalk. 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 package, approved Pima County Combination Request Form and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Bureau of Land Management Office Building Development Package (1st Review) T10BU00794 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 24, 2010 DUE DATE: June 15, 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 |
| 05/24/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At the most Northerly set of accessible parking spaces, the side walk ramp on the East side leads to no where. Please delete it. 2. Please provide a continous strip of detectable warning the entire length of flush sidewalk to ashphalt area at the most Southerly accessible parking group as per ADAAG Section 4.29.5. 3. All flush areas of sidewalk are required to have a 3' wide strip of detectable warnings as per 4.29.5. OEOP has allowed 2' deep at curb ramps only. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/24/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | COT project, reference ADA folder |
| 05/26/2010 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 25, 2010 SUBJECT: BLM Office Building Development Plan Core Review- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 3201 E Universal Way, T15S R14E Sec03 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D10-0015 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, Inc., 12MAY10), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc., 18MAR10) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Company, Inc., 13MAY10). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the draft policy for Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan and SWPPP review. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Critical Basin requirements shall be incorporated into all new development to ensure a 15 percent reduction in the existing 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges. Revise Section 3.2 of the Drainage Report to clearly show that the post discharge value for the 2-year event is reduced by the required 15%. It is recommended to discharge as much stormwater run off into landscape areas as possible by directing the concrete swale to the basin or the landscape buffer areas. Or clearly explain in the discussion why the 2-year post discharge can not be reduced by 15% and provide Hydrographs that support the discussion. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the Drainage Report to clarify all proposed drainage improvements as shown on the proposed development plan documents. Specifically the proposed 3-foot curb opening per Keynote #6 and the proposed 6'x28' gravel bed within the basin bottom as shown on Sheet 5. All proposed drainage improvements as shown on the development plan documents must be clearly supported with a discussion and calculations within the Drainage Report. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 3) Revise all notes and references on the development plan documents to correctly read "City of Tucson Planning and Development Services" where indicated by "City of Tucson Development Services." Example is Grading Note #20 that references the pre-construction meeting notice. 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The correct Development Plan Package number (D10-0015) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "D10-00##." 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: Revise the development plan document to clearly show the minimum 24-foot clear PAAL width at all gate locations. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to show the required wheel stops at all parking spaces abutting sidewalks and landscape areas to provide for the 2.5 foot overhang per DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.1. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Provide a cross section through the proposed Basin to clearly show benching, widths, slopes, gravel bed improvement (rock rip rap sizing, method of placement, filter fabric specification, etc.) and the required 2-foot setback from south property line to the top of basin fill slope. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan documents and any associated details or Keynotes to label the required filter fabric with minimum specifications. Specifically the rock rip rap pad locations per Keynotes #9, 10 and 13 and Cross Section P/8. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan documents to clearly label all proposed scuppers under the pedestrian sidewalk from the roof down spouts. Sheet 4 labels one as a 6" vertical curb, revise. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan documents to label the minimum widths for both locations of the Type II scuppers. Per the Drainage Report Keynote #9 location is required to be 7.5-feet and Keynote #10 is required to be 5-feet. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project, if applicable. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Clarify the proposed sidewalk that connects the west side of the property to the right-of-way on Valencia Road. If the sidewalk is required then a pedestrian cross access agreement is required along with a temporary construction easement to construct the sidewalk across neighboring parcels. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.S: Revise the typographical error in Keynote #16 on Sheet 5 to read; "Development Standards No. 6-01 per Detail G/7." 14) Ds Sec.11-01.4.1.F.1.b: Provide the cut and fill quantities under the Earth Work Quantities Section on Sheet 1 where indicated by "X,X00 CY." 15) Prior approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 16) Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that will be submitted to ADEQ. The NOI must be signed by the owner prior to SWPPP approval and included in Appendix A of the Report. 17) Provide 3 copies of the revised SWPPP at resubmittal (1 for CDRC records, 1 for the Engineering Inspector and 1 for the job site) for stamp approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, and SWPPP. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 06/07/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | 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 June 2, 2010 To: TRI MILLER RICK ENGINEERING 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: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICE BUILDING LOTS 62 & 63 OF AIRPORT COMMERCE CENTER Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D10-0015 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: 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: Fill in the blank for General Note # 17. Sheet 10: The public sewer easement should extend all the way to the ROW on both sides of the property line. Sheet 10: A proposed cleanout should be shown at the point of connection to the existing stubout. 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. This comment letter has been reviewed and accepted for substantial conformance to Pima County Code Title 13 by: ___________________________ Chad Amateau, P.E., Civil Engineer PCRWRD, Planning Services Section, Development Liaison Unit cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Borer, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 06/16/2010 | FRODRIG2 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/16/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 16, 2010 Tri Miller Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Road # 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D10-0015 Bureau of Land Management Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of May 14, 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 5 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, PDSD) 3 Copies SWPPP Documentation (Engineering (2), PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Approved Pima County Combo Request (Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Recorded Covenant (Zoning, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $100.00 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) 322-6956 |