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 - D11-0031
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/16/2011 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/19/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/20/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Approved. Review conducted by Zelin Canchola |
| 09/21/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/04/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 4, 2011 SUBJECT: B/E Aerospace Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 1851 S Pantano Rd, T14S R15E Sec20/21 Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0031 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Rick Engineering Co, 15AUG11). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the 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 REPORT: 1) Provide a discussion within the Drainage Statement to include conformance with the new Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance (DS Sec.10-03) and the proposed overall design of the project. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.1: Revise the Drainage Statement to delineate the limits of the 100-year floodplain of the mapped regulatory Guillermo Wash on both the pre and post development exhibits. Provide the WSEL cross section on the exhibits and verify that the development plan documents clearly labels these in plan view to match. It is recommended that a HEC-RAS run be provided however if the civil engineer can justify using multiple manning sections to establish the 100-year floodplain limits a statement must be provided within the report. The 100-year floodplain limit should be for both the East and South side of the property where adjacent to the regulatory wash. Per the DS Sec.2-01.3.8: "Existing Site Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site the existing conditions across the street will be provided." 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.5: Revise the Drainage Report to delineate the limits of the erosion hazard setback from the mapped regulatory wash on both the pre and post development exhibits. If the existing improvement plans, I-83-212 shows a reduction of the EHSB then a discussion within the Statement is required. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The correct Development Plan Package number (D11-0031) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "D11-_ _ _ _." 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.8: Existing Site Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site the existing conditions across the street will be provided, specifically the limits of the 100-year flood plain for the Guillermo Wash. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B Revise the development plan document to provide the recordation information for the proposed vacated water easement. Since the easement is in conflict with the proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.H.2: Revise the development plan document to correctly dimension the future and existing sight visibility triangles for the PAAL and Local road intersections with an MS&R Arterial Road. Future MS&R sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section for a PAAL intersecting an Arterial Road and a Local Road intersecting an Arterial Road, the dimensions shown are incorrect per the Table listed in DS Sec.3-01.5.3. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the development plan document to include floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations. This is to include the area within 50-feet of the site, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. a) Where existing channels, drainageways, etc., exist within the development document boundaries of the drawing, water surface contours for the 100-year flood with water surface elevations indicated must be shown and clearly labeled. b) The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed two hundred (200) feet unless prior agreement has been made with the City Floodplain Engineer or designee. c) A symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals on the development package documents should be included in the legend. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.I: Verify if street dedication in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes Plan is required at this time for this property. If dedication is required then provided the recordation information as indicated on Sheet 5 of 29 for the 15.29' Dedication. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.O: Revise the development plan document to include the limits of the EHSB per the Drainage Statement, if applicable. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document and Keynote #11 through out to correct the typographical error for the referenced standard. The Development Standard that applies to refuse enclosures is DS Sec.6-01, not 60-01.0. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement 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. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/07/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 October 4, 2011 To: TRI MILLER, P.E. RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC 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: BE AEROSPACE Dev. Plan – 1st submittal D11-0031 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: Sheet 1: If no new sewer is proposed then include the following General Note(Ref. A): THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. Sheet 16: Verify the size and type( public or private) of existing sewer line upstream south of MH# 2820-24. According to Map Guide photo of MH# 2820-24 the line running south is not an 8” line.( Ref. A) Sheet 16: Revise the size call out for the existing sewer line I-83-212 north of the site to 8” instead of 8’ as currently shown.( Ref. A) 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. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 10/12/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At the four accessible parking spaces located on the north end of the parking lot, the 2 marked crossings you are providing allows parked vehicles to back into the crossings. Please modify your design to have a connecting parking access in front of the 4 spaces and 1 marked crossing perpendicular to the flow of traffic to the new accessible route to building north entrance. 2. Please finish detail H/12: a. Provide all dimensions b. Show grade slopes of all crossings, parking spaces, parking aisles and ramp slopes. c. Provide detectable warning strips at the parking ailse end of the marked crossing. 3. None of the plans call for a side walk ramps at the northerly entrance pedestrian way to the northly marked crossing sidewalk ramp. It is only at sheet 9 that shows this area to have ramp slopes and landings. Please provide a large scale detail of the ramp system to the north entrance as required by ICC-ANSI 117.1, Section 405. Please include handrails on both side of all ramps, show all slopes, landings, and handrail elevations. 4. Detectable warnings are not required at the access aisle of the accessible parking. 5. Zoning may require a pedestrian access to the Research Loop right of way. If so, please insure it's accessibility as per code and provide all marked crossings as required. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/14/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 10/14/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: B/E Aerospace Development Package (1st Review) D11-0031 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 14, 2011 DUE DATE: October 14, 2011 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 plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan 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 September 18, 2012. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0 D.S. 2-01.2.2 The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. That said the site plans and grading plans are done at different scales and need to be at the same scale. 1. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet: D11-0031, T11BU01188, CO 12-84-124, CO9-80-198, CO 12-83-34 & CO 13-59-01. Remove the reference to D11-0016 as this development package was never approved. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 As the annexation condition require this property to be developed base on the requirements of the P-I zone revise General Note 3, to reflect the P-I zone development designator of 33 and the subject to of B, D, E, F, and H. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b As the annexation condition require this property to be developed base on the requirements of the P-I zone revise the allowed FAR to read 1.50. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E As this site is comprised of three parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor's Combination Request Form and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with the next submittal. 5. 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 provide the zoning classifications for the properties located west of Pantano Road and south of Research Loop. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G The plans indicate phasing. If phasing is proposed all calculations should indicate the phasing. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a detail for both a standard and accessible vehicle parking space. Detail H sheet 12 does not match the accessible vehicle parking spaces shown on sheet 5. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Remove all references of "CLASS I" bicycle parking form the plan as this type of bicycle parking is no longer relevant. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The "CLASS I" bicycle parking called out in Keynote 12 should be called Short-Term. For your information per LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.4 a single inverted "U" type rack can support two (2) bicycles. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Detail 1 sheet A9.0 does not show how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.6, 7 & 8 are met, provide this information on the detail. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4.B. are met 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. That said provide a sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk located along Research Loop. 13. Please clarify what the line is that north/south through the middle of the building on sheet 5 & 9. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package, Pima County Assessor's Combination Request Form and 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: B/E Aerospace Development Package (1st Review) T11BU01188 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 14, 2011 DUE DATE: October 14, 2011 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 |
| 10/17/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 17, 2011 Tri Miller Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd. #111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D11-0031 BE AEROSPACE Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of September 16, 2011 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 6 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Package (Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning HC, Zoning, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Lot Combo Documentation (Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $100.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 |