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 - D10-0023
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/15/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/15/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL 1. Please provide large scale detail plans of all diffrent accessible parking layout plans. Please show all critical accessible requirements, dimensions, slopes, ramps, detectable warnings as required, accessible route, access to accessible route, signage location and etc. 2. Please provide large scale details of all different types of ramps, sidewalk ramps and curb ramps. Please show all critical accessible requirements, dimensions, slopes, ramps, detectable warnings as required, accessible route and etc. SHEET 1 3. Please include in the general notes a reference for all accessible requirements within the boundaries of the property lines are to be goverened by ADAAG. 4. Please include in the general notes a reference for all accessible requirements outside the boundaries of the property lines and in the public right of way are to be goverened by COT DOT standards. SHEET 6 5. Note 9 at the end of the note sequence layout should be marked as note 18. a. There is not such detail as "A/14". Please clearify. 6. Redesign marked crossing at the auto access control gates to be straight accross the road and cut through the island to comply with ADAAG 3.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.29. This will reduce the time exposed to vehicle hazards. 7. Please provide dimension widths of all accessible routes. 8. At the 41.5' wide drive entrance, please provide within the property line boundaries, a complete marked crossing and ramps at both ends with detectable warnings as required by ADAAG. 9. Please identify all "Van Accessible" parking spaces. SHEET 7 10. Ditto comment 9 above. 11. Ditto comment 5 above. SHEET 13 12. At detail H/13 a. Section 302 deals with Floor Surfaces. Sections 4.7.7, 4.7.9 AND 4.29 deal with detectable warning strips. SHEET 14 13. At Detail "W": a. There is not sufficient detail of the parking garage to provide a comprehensive accessible review. Comments below are general in nature and further comments will probably follow when detailed plans are submitted. UNDERGROUND LEVEL a. Provide an accessible route to connect all accessible spaces to stairs. GROUND LEVEL a. Identify all accessible parking b. Ditto 12a plus connect to site accessible route END OF REVIEW |
| 07/15/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 07/16/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 07/19/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | >>> Malini Banerjee <mbanerjee@pagnet.org> 07/19/2010 2:58 PM >>> No objections regarding trip generation number. Please refer to the attached document for numbers. Please feel free to contact me for any further questions. |
| 07/22/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Due Date Case Number Project Address July 28, 2010 D10-0023 QIP TUCSON OFFICE-I DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed Development Plan for the QIP Tucson Office-I, Case No.D10-0023 Located at 275 North Commerce Park Loop, Dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal Standard 6-01.0 The Plan must show that enclosures for both refuse and recycle collection. Attached please find details for both single and double container enclosures. To be designed for this development. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/22/2010 | FRODRIG2 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | >>> Joe Olsen 07/22/2010 9:56 AM >>> John- Tucson Water does not have any comments. Thanks Joe |
| 07/22/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | July 22, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0023 PROJECT NAME: QIP Tucson Office 1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 301 N Commerce Park Loop PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The radius for the curb returns can be reduced from 25' to 18'. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 3. The 8-foot right-turn lane for the western driveway is not needed. Please remove from the design. 4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/22/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 07/21/2010 1:51 PM >>> ADOT has no objections to this development and recommends approval. |
| 07/22/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/23/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0023 QIP TUCSON OFFICE I/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 23, 2010 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Add resubdivision of Lot 16 Rio Nuevo North Resub Book 41, Page 39 to all Title Blocks. Shade in the entire project on the Location Map. Number the buildings. |
| 07/26/2010 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0023 QIP Tucson Office 7/23/10 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-07-14 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rio Nuevo PAD-4 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: July 23, 2010 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an FLD, No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) Resubmittal Required - See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: JBeall 791-5505 DATE: 7/23/10 Comments 1. Please correct "Development Area - 4" to read "Development Area: 5" on Sheet 1. Also remove the numbering from 1 to 18, and replace with letters, under the heading 'General Development Standards' as found in the PAD document, i.e. a), b), etc. There is no need to number letter Primary or Alternate Uses Permitted. 2. Please correct spelling of 'perperty' to 'property' in number 8 of the conditions, Sheet 1. 3. Under Parking Calculations - Perimeter Yards, Sheet 1, there appears to be a typo? The R-2 is located on the west side; and there is no PAD-1? Please correct. 4. Parking Calculations - Required Parking Per the PAD parking requirements shall be determined by a parking study completed for proposed uses. We have reviewed the parking analysis and determined that the proposed project requires less parking than required by the Land Use Code. However, the parking analysis needs to state that all but 18 parking spaces are to be behind gated security. And if more spaces are needed due to either an increase in the number of employees, or a future change of use (s), that the site can provide more available parking, i.e. how much, and where on the site. Also a parking analysis will be needed for the adjacent building to the east, and to be submitted with its development plan, given the required lot configuration. 5. Please provide documentation that the site has been surveyed for buffelgrass, and if any found then buffelgrass has been remediated from site. 6. On Sheet 8, the dumpster appears to be less than 50-feet away from residential property line. Per the PAD all dumpsters and loading zones are to be at least 50-feet away from residential property line. Please correct, and dimension this on the development plan and in the keynotes. 7. On Sheet 8, the 8-foot high screen wall leaves a 'dead-area' at the southwest corner of the property. The PAD specifically calls out that a 6-foot high wall and a 5-foot planting strip buffer on west and south property lines, where a 5-foot high wall does not exist, is to be constructed. The wall can be greater than 6-feet, but not to exceed 8-feet, where the wall is located on residential property line. Individual property owners are to be consulted regarding design of the wall. Please provide documentation that identifies where walls already exist, or don't exist, along the property line and that the property owners have been contacted. NOTE: The wall is to be constructed prior to the start of construction. No building permits will be issued before the wall is constructed. Please provide how the 'dead-area' in the southwest corner will be landscaped and maintained. 8. Please provide a wall detail that shows the screen wall adjacent to the residential property lines at the south and west is attractively finished on both sides. 9. On Sheet 9, the height for the screen wall (note 9) is not identified. Also, the wall stops and does not continue along the perimeter boundary. Please address as per comments 7 and 8. 10. Please provide information on how much landscaping the project is providing as the PAD requires a minimum 10% of gross site (excluding up to 5-foot width of landscape areas along public rights-of-way). 11. Please provide for review a revised development plan for the adjacent government building. 12. Please provide building elevations with height dimensions and other appropriate dimensions. 13. Please provide a lighting plan, and light detail that shows site lighting along west and south property lines shall not exceed 24-feet in height. Lighting shall be set on timers and light levels will be reduced to the minimum levels allowable at 10:00 pm. Fully shielded lighting to be used to minimize light pollution and spill-over onto residential properties. |
| 07/27/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: QIP Tucson Office I Development Package (1st Review) D10-0023 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2009 DUE DATE: July 28, 2009 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 July 14, 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. Based on the proposed project there appears to be a modification to the existing site to the east. Prior to approval of this development package a revised development plan must be submitted to CDRC for review. 4. Based on the proposed project there is some type of lot split/reconfiguration proposed. The lot split/reconfiguration must be processed through, and approved by the City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services prior to approval of the development package. 5. Per PAD 4 Section III.B.2.b.2) Provide the required Floor, Sign, Lighting and Elevation Rendering plans with your next submittal. The following comments are based on the assumption that all lot split/reconfiguration issues have been addressed. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.6 The project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD District on the first sheet, indicating the 7. location of the portion being developed. 8. 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, Sheet 6, provide the zoning for the parcel to the north of this project. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per PAD 4, Development Regulations for Development Area 5, Lots 16 and 17, g, requires that Parking requirements shall be determined by a parking study completed for the proposed use. If this analysis determines that the proposed facility requires less parking than required by the Land Use Code, the parking onsite will be reduced accordingly. This parking study must be approved prior to approval of the development package. Provide documentation that the parking study has been approved. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Under Parking Calculations there are 234 spaces shown per the parking study. Zoning was only able to count 94 vehicle parking spaces on site. If the two story garage is to be used for required vehicle parking provide a fully dimensioned layout for both levels of the garage. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Until the parking study is approved Zoning cannot verify that the bicycle parking calculation is correct. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Clearly indicate the main entrance on the plan so that the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 can be verified. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The proposed 8' wall called out under Keynote 13 does not appear to meet the street setback of the distance equal to 60% of building height, not less than 20'. Based on the PAD 4 definition of Building, Any structure or building for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, or property of any kind, including accessory/maintenance facility, and the LUC definition of Structure, A physical element constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to another physical element having a fixed location at, below, or above grade. Structures include such elements as, but are not limited to, buildings, paved areas, walls, fences, posts, and patios, the wall must meet building perimeter yard setbacks. Also per PAD 4 Section III.A.3.c no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height. 14. Sheets 6, 7 & 8 show two (2) Keynote 9, please clarify. 15. 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/ D10-0023 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan & Floor, Sign, Lighting and Elevation Rendering plans CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: QIP Tucson Office I Development Package (1st Review) T10BU01122 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2009 DUE DATE: July 28, 2009 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 |
| 07/28/2010 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: RICK Engineering, Tri Miller, P.E., Paul Iezzi, P.E. REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE SUBJECT: QIP Tucson Office I Development Package Engineering Review ADDRESS: 275 N Commerce Park Loop LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec11 FLOODPLAIN STATUS: X-unshaded & X-shaded zones, 2226K REZONING CASE: C9-07-14, PAD-4 CASE NUMBER: D10-0023, T10BU01122 SUMMARY: A development package was submitted in lieu of an otherwise required development plan for the proposed QIP Tucson Office I improvements. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Development Package including plan sheets, QIP Tucson Office I Drainage Report (RICK Engineering Co, Paul Iezzi, P.E. 7/12/10), Geotechnical Evaluation (ConformaTECH, Clyde Pretti, P.E., 7/14/10), QIP Tucson Office I SWPPP (RICK Engineering Co, Chris Myrick), and Traffic Impact Statement/Parking Analysis, Michael Kenney, P.E., T.E.. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan, and SWPPP review. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Package until the following comments are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: Relevant case numbers (D10-0023, T10BU01122) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.B: Clarify Santa Cruz River on location map. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the following Development Package general note comments: a) DS Sec.2-01.3: As a general comment, please update all locations of Development Services Department with "Planning & Development services Department". b) DS Sec.11-01.16: After grading note 28, add additional grading notes that states that: i) There will be a required letter stating the drainage facilities were constructed to meet City of Tucson drainage requirements and were constructed per the approved plans and drainage report(s). ii) Geotechnical field reports, observation reports, and final completion letters will be required, including basin compaction report, and final project substantial completion letter. Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibilities is in accordance with the approved soils engineering report. c) Clarify the following notes on the cover sheet: i) Add to grading note 4, basin compaction and liner installation. ii) Grading note 15 needs to be removed or revised to match geotechnical report. iii) Revise grading note 18: Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. basin compaction, basin liner, toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it. iv) Remove grading note 30. v) Grading and paving general note 26 does not conform to geotechnical report. Remove or revise. d) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.E: Add general note that clarifies whether the elevation datum is the same as the drainage report. BASE LAYER SHEET / SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Provide site boundary bearing and distances for the perimeter per plat. Label as Recorded and provide any additional data and label as Measured or Calculated. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B & D: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property. Identifying the locations of all utilities and service equipment immediately adjacent to the project is especially important in situations where pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation or landscaping can be in conflict. By knowing the location of the existing utilities, design of the project can take those elements into consideration and can help avoid expensive and time-consuming relocation of utilities, major redesign, or requests to vary regulations after commencement of construction. a) Specifically add and label Gas Monitoring Probes to the north of the project site. b) It may be necessary to provide a copy of recent Title Report to check easement data. c) Label / delineate drainage access and maintenance easement along north portion of project per drainage comments. d) DS Sec.11-01.9: Label 2-ft setback at south, west and east property boundaries. Revise the following: i) East access lane so that minim setback from edge of curb is provided (see sheet 8). ii) Boundary wall to assure that trench for wall footers is fully within south, east, and west parcel boundaries or provide additional setback for wall from parcel boundary. Otherwise a construction and maintenance easement shall be provided for the wall along these boundaries. Update horizontal control plan accordingly. e) Explain or add maintenance easements for drainage improvements or other improvements off site. There are some drainage improvements (catch basin ) to the east of the parcel and there are other improvements to east parcel that may need a temporary construction easement. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.G: A City of Tucson Rio Nuevo North Closed Landfill exists at the site. Address the following comments: a) Identify location of landfill remediation on planview. These elements should be indicated in a different line weight than the proposed improvements and labeled "to be removed" or other notation. b) Provide remediation status update in response letter to assure all Environmental Services requirements are met for this landfill. 7) DS Sec.10-03.3.1.A: For rezoning condition 13, address the following comments: a) Show location of wall on planview. b) Provide detail for any wall openings that may provide drainage to existing landscaping. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.3: Indicate safe and adequate emergency vehicle circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability. Show turning movements for solid waste pick-up, indicate fire / emergency access location with keynote or other indicator, and add notation for fire key box. Contact Fire Department regarding application for fire box for proposed gate. Also show turning movements for loading zone areas at south side of building. 9) Clarify the following drafting comments: a) On sheet 9: i) Remove the word retention from basin labeling. ii) Explain 1 / 2 symbol in basin. iii) Clarify Q100 exiting spillway and pipe at north outlet area. b) Dimension distance between access lane and east parcel boundary line. c) Detail J on sheet 13 needs clarification that the interior minimum dimension between side bollards is 10-ft, and 10-ft between rear bollards and front door frames. SIGNING & STRIPING SHEET COMMENT: 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Provide traffic control diagram sheet within grading plan sheets that clarifies construction access and staging areas. Show temporary signage and traffic controls. 11) For gated entry, indicate signage that provides clarification of restricted entry at east entrance. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 12) DS Sec.10-02.10.3: CMP can not be used to connect to the existing City-maintained channel at north portion of the project. Revise this section of pipe to be RCP or show other alternative design. 13) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: The drainage access/ maintenance easement will need to be delineated at the north side of the project along the south side of the existing City-maintained channel. This easement shall match As-built plan I-87-027 unless the City of Tucson Dept of Transportation specifically accepts a different proposal. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.5, DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Verification will need to be provided for any proposed drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development document area verifying that it is to be constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation from TDOT and TEP of that approval will need to be submitted with the drainage report.) Address the following comments: a) The proposed concrete spillway and weir outlet which may cross a required maintenance access area is not necessarily accepted. Any drainage improvement at this location will need to show how access along the drainageway is provided as well as no conflict with existing electrical easement. b) Regarding the proposed pipe entering the drainage channel, provide authorization documentation for this pipe entrance. Explain and show whether flap gates are provided. 15) Address the following comments pertaining specifically to the Drainage Report: a) Add / label OS-1 to planview on Figure 5. b) Differentiate areas of X-shaded and unshaded on planview on Figure 6. c) On sheet 1 of Figure 7, add proposed invert elevations for proposed pipe outlets. d) For Figure 7, provide a cross-sectional detail at the crossing of the existing 48-in RCP sewer pipe and the proposed 18-in storm pipe. Dimension clearance distance. e) Delineate, dimension and label the existing drainage access/ maintenance easement on Figure 7. f) Add TG, FS, FL and FG and other symbols to Legend on Figure 7 sheets. g) Add flowrate exiting proposed pipe and proposed spillway at north side of project; label on planview for Figure 4, Figure 6, or Figure 7 sheet 1. 16) DS Sec.10-03.3.1.A.5, DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Address the following geotechnical-related drainage comments: a) Add notation to Drainage Report page 7 that the City of Tucson has granted the request for retention waiver based on the groundwater location and geotechnical borings. b) To prevent degradation of trench soils near existing sewer line, and to minimize seepage to underlying soils and to proposed foundation, show basin liner as required by geotechnical report. Label on grading plan sheets and on Drainage Report Figure 7 sheet 1, and provide a detail for the basin liner. Details shall show how liner directs water to outlet pipe. Add notation to details per section 9.0 of the geotechnical report or provide as General Grading Notes. 17) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: Water harvesting shall be incorporated into the design for project as much as possible while conforming to the Geotechnical constraints and requirements. Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. Type 1 scuppers or drain out pipes will be needed for all water harvest areas to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas that are adjacent to sidewalks. And see Landscaping comments below for additional comments. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 18) DS Sec.10-03.3.1.A.5: Due to the restrictive subsurface constraints at this site water harvesting design must be in conformance with geotechnical report. Landscaping within 15 feet of structures shall be restricted to native drought resistant vegetation and water shall drain freely away from building per geotechnical requirements. Address the following comments on the landscape plan sheets: a) At minimum Type 1 scuppers shall be labeled at low points of water harvesting areas to allow for drain out so that no ponding occurs per geotechnical requirements. b) On sheet 27, clarify location of irrigation lines so that the minimum setback is provided per geotechnical report. c) Show compliance to section 8.0 of the Geotechnical Report. d) See also drainage comments related to water harvesting. 19) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Regarding landscape sheets address the following comments: a) Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within the existing/remaining and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility. b) Sheet 30 does not match existing conditions; revise. c) Show compliance with rezoning conditions. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.M: Address the following grading related comments: a) Delineate disturbance limits on planview grading sheets. b) Show minimum 2-ft setback at west and south property boundaries. Specifically show on sheets 10, c) Typical Slope Treatment tables on grading sheets shall be revised to conform to minimum geotechnical slope restrictions; remove option for 1:1 slopes on all grading sheets, detail sheets (detail L on sheet 13). d) Provide local vertical benchmark with elevation and provide datum. e) On sheet S sheet 14, add existing grade to section. f) Revise detail T on sheet 14 to show compliance with geotechnical report. Filter fabric shall be revised to indicate non-permeable fabric per geotechnical engineer. Compaction note needs to be revised also to match geotechnical recommendations in section 7.9. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 21) Tucson Code Chap.26 Art.2: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the following comments: a) Address the following general SWPPP comments: i) For inspection purposes, please fill out the enclosed City of Tucson's "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post it or the NOI at construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. ii) Show, label, and provide leader line for the receiving waters either on location map on cover sheet, on vicinity map on exhibit, or on other planview. iii) Tucson Code Sec.26 Article 2: Provide registrant seals for SWPP report and exhibit(s) per COT Stormwater Ordinance. b) Address the following comments for the SWPPP Report: i) All Operators shall be identified and have separate certification statements. For the Owner/Operator Certification Statements, provide name and signature for the Operators with each certification statement. ii) The Operator Certification Statement should have a statement with name & signature that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner or developer of project), or that they have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. iii) At minimum, one Operator, either the project manager or owner as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the Operator certifications. Please note that the remaining signatures from the Operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP (exhibit or report) at or before commencement of construction. (Part IV.C.1) iv) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out at commencement of grading construction activity and to be updated on site and kept with the SWPP. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d) v) Provide sequential list of grading construction activities for this project. The sequence of major activities should state whether establishment of erosion and stormwater controls are to occur prior to clearing and rough grading of this site. vi) Identify and provide a list of potential pollutant sources from this project. vii) Provide copy of completely filled-out NOI that has been sent to ADEQ. See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnoi.pdf viii) Provide a copy of the form for the NOT. See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnot.pdf c) Address the following comments for the SWPPP exhibit sheets: i) Delineate limits of remedial excavation for landfill. ii) Depict /clarify all specific interim erosion/stormwater control measures and locations of all stabilization practices on planview, including control measures needed along downstream disturbance limits, specific interim erosion control devices at basin outlets, and other controls as necessary for this project. iii) Show limits, dimensions, and designated locations on the planview for both temporary stockpile area, concrete washout area, and material / construction vehicle storage areas, with appropriate controls. Temporary material or vehicle staging / stockpile area, and designated concrete washout locations should not be located in or near basins, washes/river, floodplain, or water harvesting areas. iv) For stabilized entrance on SWPP exhibit, label rock size for construction entrances (typically 1 - 3-in min). v) Revise boundary controls according to the following comments: (1) Label 2-ft grading offset from west boundary limits. (2) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. (3) Interim control measures shall be placed within the grading limits that match grading plan. vi) Regarding general notes on the SWPPP cover sheet: (1) Clarify note on SWPP plan cover sheet that the Operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The Operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: (a) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 22) For resubmittal package, provide 2 copies of revised SWPPP exhibit, report, copy of NOI, NOT, with general permit. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENT: 23) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: See drainage and landscape comments for additional geotechnical engineering comments. A meeting or additional phone calls will be required to discuss the proposed drainage design including the retention requirements. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, revised SWPPP and a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 07/28/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plan to reflect the current status of the native plant inventory on the site. As of July 28, 2010 many of the protected plants have been removed without an approved NPP Plan and in violation of the zoning for the property. See comment #4. 3) Work on the site has progressed in violation of LUC 3.8.4.2 and the provisions for enforcement, penalties and fines may be applicable: 3.8.4.2 Plan Approval Prior to Site Modifications. No grubbing, grading, construction, or salvaging of any plants on the site shall take place prior to the submittal and approval of the required Native Plant Preservation Plan. Protected Native Plants designated in Sec. 3.8.5 shall not be destroyed, damaged, salvaged, transplanted, or removed from the site except in accordance with the approved Plan. 3.8.7 ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES, FINES, AND OTHER REMEDIES. In addition to the provisions of Sec. 5.5.3, any violation of this Division shall be subject to the following enforcement, penalties, fines, and other remedies. 3.8.7.1 Fines. Any person who, individually or through the acts of another person, intentionally or negligently damages, destroys, or removes from the site any Protected Native Plant, except as authorized by an approved Native Plant Preservation Plan, shall be subject to the following. A. A fine as determined for the damage, destruction, or removal from the site of each Protected Native Plant based upon the following schedule: 1. For each Viable Saguaro: a minimum of two hundred dollars ($200) per foot of main trunk and two hundred dollars ($200) per foot of each arm with a maximum not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per Saguaro. 2. For each Viable Protected Native Tree or Shrub: a minimum of three hundred dollars ($300) per caliper inch measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multi-trunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree with a maximum not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per tree or shrub. (Ord. No. 9246, §1, 10/11/99) 3. For all other Viable Protected Native Cacti or Succulents: a minimum of three hundred dollars ($300) per specimen with a maximum not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per cactus. B. A fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) if plant materials are damaged, destroyed, or removed from the site prior to approval of a Native Plant Preservation Plan. 3.8.7.2 Additional Penalties. Any person who, individually or through the acts of another person, intentionally or negligently damages, destroys, or removes from the site any Protected Native Plant, except as authorized by an approved Native Plant Preservation Plan, may be subject to one or more of the following, in addition to any fines imposed per Sec. 3.8.7.1. A. Mitigation in accordance with Sec. 3.8.6.4 and any supplemental mitigation determined to be appropriate to restore the natural habitat and plant communities which have been damaged, destroyed, or removed from the site. B. Supplemental maintenance and monitoring requirements for Protected Native Plants following the final inspection performed on the site for a period not to exceed eight (8) years. C. Revocation of zoning compliance for any building permits which have been issued for the development. D. Immediate suspension by the Development Services Department (DSD) Director of any permits issued by the City for development of the property. Any such suspension shall remain in effect until permits expire unless the violation is mitigated in accordance with this Division in a manner which is satisfactory to the DSD Director. The decision by the DSD Director to suspend any permit, or to reject a proposal to provide the mitigation necessary for the reinstatement of the permits, shall be appealable pursuant to DSD established procedures. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00) 3.8.7.3 Recording of Permit Suspension or Revocation. Where any permit issued by the City is suspended until its expiration pursuant to Sec. 3.8.7.2.D, no new permit shall be issued for the property until any fines issued pursuant to Sec. 3.8.7.1 have been fully paid and/or all mitigation required by Sec. 3.8.7.2.A has been fully performed. A notice of this requirement for the issuance of any future development permit on the property shall be recorded on the property by the Development Services Department (DSD) Director with the Pima County Recorder. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00) 4) Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 10461 includes the General Development Standards applicable to this site. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with k) which requires existing mature landscaping to be preserved in place and placement of the wall to accommodate the landscaping. Any mature trees which have been removed are required to be replaced the same size and species. 5) Revise the native plant inventory list to include plant # 40. 6) Revise the Landscape Border Table (sheet 23) to incorporate the special; screening and buffering requirements per General Development Standard f). 7) Provide information regarding the finish of the proposed perimeter walls required per General Development Standard f). 8) Revise the plans to clarify compliance with General Development Standard e) by including pertinent calculations. 9) Provide information on the required consultations with individual residential property owners required per General Development Standard f). 10) The plan set received by this section did not include sheet 25, nor did the set include a plant legend, or a list of plant quantities. Revise as necessary. 11) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 12) Show the locations of protected native plants designated as PIP or TOS, and required mitigation plants on the landscape plans . DS 2-15.3.4.B.2 13) Show and identify existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 14) Revise the water harvesting plans to correspond with these comments and those of other agencies. |
| 07/29/2010 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 07/30/2010 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 07/30/2010 | 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 July 30, 2010 To: TRI MILLER RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 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: QIP TUCSON OFFICE I Dev. Plan – 1ST Submittal D10-0023 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: 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). Sheet 16: Show the construction plan # and pipe size for the existing public sewer on plan. Also Call out the IMS #’s with rim and invert elevations for all of the existing public manholes shown on plan. Sheet 16 and 17: The proposed manhole shown connecting to the existing 8” public sewer line should be called out as public not private. Also the rim and invert elevations for this manhole should be shown on Sheet 16. Sheet 16: The PAAL’s will need to be dedicated to RWRD for access to the 42”public sewer line running thru the property. Also a 16’ minimum gate with RWRD approved lock will need to be installed along the east fence line across the public sewer easement. 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 |
| 08/04/2010 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#227153 August 4, 2010 Rick Engineering Company Inc. Attn: Tri Miller 3945 E Ft Lowell Rd, Suite 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Tri: SUBJECT: QIP Tucson Office I D10-0023 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted July 15, 2010 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. ricahrd Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 08/05/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 5, 2010 Tri Miller Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Road # 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D10-0023 QIP Tucson Office I Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of July 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 10 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Env Svcs, Traffic, Addressing, Planning, Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, Wastewater, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage, Geotechnical, and SWPPP Reports (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Existing Wall and Bufflegrass Documentation (Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Floor, Sign, Lighting and Building Elevations (Planning, Zoning PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $100.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 322-6956 |