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 - D10-0023
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/27/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/01/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 09/07/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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. |
| 09/07/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: September 7, 2010 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 09/08/2010 | 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 (2nd Review) D10-0023 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 8, 2010 DUE DATE: September 14, 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 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. The lot split must be finalized prior to approval of the development package. 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. The following comments are based on the assumption that all lot split/reconfiguration issues have been addressed. 4. Not used. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Due to security issues Zoning recommends that the Class 1 bicycle parking shown at the entrance to the site be removed and that only the five required Class 2 bicycle parking spaces be provided in this area. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking calculation does not appear to reflect what is shown on the plan. Based on the plan there are 17 Class 1 and 2 Class 2 bicycle parking spaces provided on the plan. The calculation shows 15 Class 1 provided and 5 Class 2. Based on the requirements of LUC 3.3.4 the calculation would be correct not what is shown on the plan, please clarify. 7. Clearly identify which perimeter wall detail will be used along the front of the project. 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. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.F sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas may not be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. That said the striped pedestrian refuge shown between the three (3) accessible vehicle parking spaces at the north end of the lower garage level may not be located as shown. 9. 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 CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: QIP Tucson Office I Development Package (2nd Review) T10BU01122 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 8, 2010 DUE DATE: September 14, 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 |
| 09/09/2010 | 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 September 8, 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 – 2nd 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: 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: ___________________________ Chad Amateau, P.E., Civil Engineer PCRWRD, Planning Services Section, Development Liaison Unit cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 09/10/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/10/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | Sheets 9 10 and 13 1. At the Parking Garage North entrance: a. Please provide a marked crossing for the connection of the accessible parking spaces across the PAAL complete with detectable warnings. b. The accessible route connection of the three accessible parking spaces can not be behind the parking spaces. It must be in front so parked cars can not back up into passing pedestrians. 2. As per ADAAG Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3 please provide an exterior connection of all accessible routes. 3. The accessible route from the most Southerly single accessible parking space to the Westerly exit doors traverses several areas that are vehicle access doorways. Each one of these vehicular crossing require a marked crossing with detectable warnings at each side. Zoning will require all the rest of the pedestrian way to be concrete with a physical separation from the asphaltic paving; i.e. curb, railing, bollards and/or detectable warning strips. Please reference Zoning comments. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/14/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Include the destroyed plant inventory list in the total calculations for the site. This will modify the minimum TOS requirement. 2) Review and revise the calculations (Sht. 34) for Prosopis velutina. There do not appear be any PIP plants on the site. 3) Show the oak trees required by the PAD regulations along Commerce Park Loop on the landscape plan. Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 4) Review the native plant inventory list and the designations on the aerial photo for consistency. For instance #86 is TOS on the photo, but RFS on the inventory list. 5) Plant #29, designated as PIP, could not be located on the NPPP photo. Revise as necessary. 6) Note 1 on P.34 indicates that a portion of the required mitigation will be located on the adjacent WACC site. Plan approval for the WACC landscape will be required to final approval of QIP site. Provide any agreements or landscape easements that allow for transfer of mitigation to other parcels (WACC or others), along with clarification of maintenance responsibilities. 7) 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. 8) Provide information on the required consultations with individual residential property owners required per General Development Standard f. 9) Identify dust control measures for all areas of the site. Only portions of the site currently show decomposed granite or hydroseed. LUC 3.7.2.7. |
| 09/14/2010 | 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 Resubmittal 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: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised QIP Tucson Office I Development Package including revised plan sheets, QIP Tucson Office I revised Drainage Report (RICK Engineering Co, Paul Iezzi, P.E. (8/23/10), Geotechnical Evaluation addendum (ConformaTECH, Clyde Pretti, P.E., 8/18/10), QIP Tucson Office I revised SWPPP (RICK Engineering Co, Chris Myrick, Bruce Paton, P.E., 8-19-10), Title Report documents, and response letter. A meeting was held 18AUG10 to go over Engineering related comments. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Package until the remaining comments are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES COMMENT: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Clarify the remaining notes on general note sheets: a) Add all test methods specifications as listed in the geotechnical addenda (8/18/10), by adding a note to grading plan sheet which shows the basin, or, to general notes sheet or revising Grading Note 31. b) Remove the word Retention from the heading "Maintenance of Detention / Retention Facilities" on sheet 2. c) Remove the word "Retention" from all the notes for the Maintenance of Detention Facilities on sheet 2. d) Add a note that no more than 2-ft of fill may be placed within residential 100-ft setback. BASE LAYER SHEET / SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B & D: Address the remaining easement comments: a) Per the Title Report schedule B documents, explain, clarify, fill in the blanks, and submit the missing documents, or have Title Agent clarify these items in a revised Title Report. The following comments need to be addressed: i) On Lot 17 (south portion of project) explain item 15 (page 9) reference to ALTA; blanks indicate a date of preparation of a separate survey. ii) On Lot 17 (south portion of project) explain Second Amended requirement item 3 (page 10) which also refers to an ALTA. iii) On Lot 16 (north portion of project) explain item 8 (page 8) reference to ALTA; blanks indicate a date of preparation of a separate survey. iv) On Lot 16 (north portion of project) explain First Amended requirement item 4 (page 10) which also refers to requirement of providing an ALTA survey / plat or survey. b) 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. (Sheet 17 planview portion of detail AA, and sheet 11 is missing this easement so this easement appears to be not addressed for the base layer.) 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.G: A City of Tucson Rio Nuevo North Closed Landfill exists at the site. Provide remediation status update in response letter to assure all Environmental Services requirements are met for this landfill. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.10-02.10.3: Revise the label for SRP section of pipe on Figure 7 sheet 2 to be RCP to match pipe type shown on grading plan view sheet. 5) PDSD is currently processing the Floodplain Use Permit application for the north drainage easement improvements. 6) Address the remaining Drainage Report related comments pertaining specifically to the: a) On Figure 5, clarify flows near OS-E to clarify whether this arrow is pointing in the correct direction and the flowrate entering catch basin on Western Archeological Center. b) For sheet 17 planview portion of detail AA, delineate the drainage access easement. c) Show location of wall openings on wall planview sheets 6, 7, & 8. 7) Revise the Basin and Drainage System Checklist in report. Maintenance schedule and notes should include restricted maintenance access to basins (no vehicular access to prevent damage to liner or grouted rip rap), and offsite maintenance of flap gate (northwest side of project) and catch basin (northeast side of project). Need to add a section for basin liner maintenance - this may include having a geotechnical engineer inspect when there is a breach in the liner or other maintenance issue that questions the permeability of the liner's function. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.M: Address the remaining grading related comments: a) Dimension length of grouted rock spillway on weir detail V on sheet 16. b) Clarify Detail S section A-A on sheet 16 and add max slope grade for 3-ft sections. c) Typical Slope Treatment tables and details on grading sheets shall be revised to conform to minimum geotechnical slope restrictions. This 1:1(H:V) note is misleading to the contractors, and adds delays to inspections & project completion. Specifically: i) Remove option for 1:1 slopes on all grading sheets 11, 12, & 13. ii) Revise detail L on sheet 15. d) For the crossing of the existing 48-in RCP sewer pipe and the proposed 18-in storm pipe, Detail 1 on Figure 7 sheet 2 should be provided on a grading plan sheet. e) Add callout label on planview for keynote 22 on sheet 11. f) For differential grading process requirements, delineate the residential 100-ft setback line on the west side of the proposed stockpile on lot 16. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 9) 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). Address the remaining general SWPPP comments: a) Provide a copy of the form for the NOT. b) Appendix appears to be missing appendices or is not in correct order. Clarify/correct and provide missing appendices. 10) For resubmittal package, provide 2 copies of revised SWPPP exhibit, report, copy of NOI, NOT, with general permit. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENT: 11) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Per Geotechnical addendum 8/18/10, the basin liner needs to be extended on all sides above the maximum water surface elevation by 1.5 feet. Revise details and add details to show this extended area of the clay layer. Inflow area will need energy dissipation, revise detail S/16 to show either rip rap over the clay liner, or discuss with Geotechnical Engineer and provide design acceptable to the Geotechnical engineer with additional geotechnical addendum. Also, assure that the extents of the clay layer does not conflict with plant placement. A meeting is recommended to go over remaining comments. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, a copy of Geotechnical Report with addenda, revised SWPPP and a response letter addressing 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 |
| 09/14/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Due Date Case Number Project Address September 14, 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. 1. All containers shown on the Development Plan must be labeled for the intended us being Solid Waste or Recycle materials 2. The gates for the container enclosures must be shown, installed and mounted attached to the end on the CMU screen wall as show on Solid Waste Standards. 3. The detail of the container enclosures must clearly show that the minimum inside dimension between the bollards shall be a 10'- 0". As shown on the Solid Waste Standards. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/14/2010 | ROGER HOWLETT | 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 9/14/10 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-07-14 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rio Nuevo PAD-4 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: September 14, 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: 9/14/10 Comments 1. Please correct labeling, Sheet 1 under General Development Standards to correspond with the labeling found in the PAD. The letter 'a' should start with "minimum building setback from … ". 7. At the next resubmittal please provide a copy of a determination letter from the Planning and Development Services Director that responds to any minor or non-substantial changes to the PAD requirements. Please address how the proposed trees in the 'pocket-area' at the southwest corner of the site are to be maintained as it appears this area is proposed to be walled off form the site. 10. Although the information asked for showing that the proposed project is providing landscaping at a minimum 10% of gross site; the landscape plan on Sheet 26 does not indicate that there will be oak trees along the street frontage of North Commerce Park Loop. Please correct. |
| 09/15/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 15, 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 8 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Package (Addressing, Zoning, ADA, Community Planning, Env, Svcs, Landscape, Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Residential Property Owners Consultation Documents (Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies PDSD Director Determination Letter (Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report w/ addenda (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, PDSD) 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) 624-0384 |
| 09/15/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES *** REVISED *** September 23, 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 7 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, ADA, Community Planning, Env, Svcs, Landscape, Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Residential Property Owners Consultation Documents (Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies PDSD Director Determination Letter (Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report w/ addenda (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, PDSD) 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) 624-0384 |